4 ms·
I'm not sure I agree at all with Jacques maths, the cost of local storage is tiny compared to the cost of Dropbox itself, and that's unlikely to ever change A
by EwanToo 16y ago
I'm not sure I agree at all with Jacques maths, the cost of local storage is tiny compared to the cost of Dropbox itself, and that's unlikely to ever change
A hard drive costs maybe $30 for 100GB, higher capacities have much better GB/$ ratios. Dropbox costs $240 per year for 100GB, which has to cover both the storage and bandwidth costs.
At the moment, the growth in data stored is increasing at much higher rate than the rate at which the cost of storage and bandwidth is decreasing.
Sure Dropbox is great and a local/remote sync process is likely to become normal over time, but it won't be for cost saving reasons.
- Swannie 16y agoBut most of that data stored is things like illegal music and film downloads.[* ] With the rise in popularity of Netflix, Spotify, Pandora, etc. people will only use local storage for a cache. Why would you waste time downloading it, when it's on tap? * Media producers are a little different in this respect and are always going to want local storage. However Jacques is mostly talking about the 95% of users who just have few 100mb of docs.
- EwanToo 16y agoThere's a lot of people buying legitimate music and films now you know..? Plus photos and videos that people make themselves will always take up a significant amount of space. I don't dispute that remote storage and streaming will become normal - I just think anyone who looks at the costs and thinks it'll be cheaper than having it locally stored is kidding themselves. It'll definitely be better than having it locally stored, but it'll cost more too.