4 ms·

Using Amazon's S3 is a good idea while your company is still acquiring a lot of users, but at some point in future if you are a storage company and you are in i

by wave 15y ago

Using Amazon's S3 is a good idea while your company is still acquiring a lot of users, but at some point in future if you are a storage company and you are in it for a long haul, you have to build your own storage solution. I think Dropbox is approaching to the point when they have to build their own storage. You can't be a storage company without having your own storage solution in backend. It would be similar to Yahoo not having their own search engine while being a search company.

matt4711 15y ago
I thought yahoo's search results are now coming from bing...
- wave 15y ago
  I am referring to in past when Yahoo used Google and other search engine solution instead of buying or building their own before it was too late.
- revorad 15y ago
  Exactly.
clistctrl 15y ago
I think they're actually quite different circumstances (though your point is valid, that a storage company should own their own storage solution). Yahoo never thought of themselves as a search company. I think they considered search to be a commodity... as long as it works thats all that matters, and thought the value of the advertising should be their focus.
cgbystrom 15y ago
Makes me think of why Backblaze built their own "storage pod". http://blog.backblaze.com/2009/09/01/petabytes-on-a-budget-how-to-build-cheap-cloud-storage/ http://blog.backblaze.com/2009/09/01/petabytes-on-a-budget-h... According to them, their storage costs are ~20 times less than those of S3. A bit different use-case for sure. But as wave says, once you become a storage company you will inevitably need to do it in-house to be cost-effective.
partisan 15y ago
First comment, forgive me. "You can't be a storage company without having your own storage solution in backend." I am not sure that is necessarily true. There are plenty of web hosting resellers who are successful without ever buying a single server or a single line. They've repackaged and re-sold a service. Dropbox can operate in a similar fashion, re-packaging and reselling Amazon's services.
- jagira 15y ago
  Like Engine Yard and Heroku?
- dandelany 15y ago
  > Dropbox can operate in a similar fashion, re-packaging and reselling Amazon's services. Yes, they can, and apparently have, but they're getting to the size now that they can achieve some significant economies of scale by building out their own storage infrastructure. Their profit margin has to be pretty low with S3.
wmf 15y ago
When SmugMug got large, didn't they move from in-house storage to S3? Granted, one of the reasons was cash flow, which isn't as much of a concern for a VC-backed startup.
- SwellJoe 15y ago
  I'd wager that "large" SmugMug is vastly smaller than Dropbox (probably comparable to Dropbox of a year or two ago). I'm certain Dropbox is storing orders of magnitude more data than SmugMug at this point in time.

by wave 15y ago

matt4711 15y ago

I thought yahoo's search results are now coming from bing...

wave 15y ago
I am referring to in past when Yahoo used Google and other search engine solution instead of buying or building their own before it was too late.
revorad 15y ago
Exactly.

clistctrl 15y ago

I think they're actually quite different circumstances (though your point is valid, that a storage company should own their own storage solution). Yahoo never thought of themselves as a search company. I think they considered search to be a commodity... as long as it works thats all that matters, and thought the value of the advertising should be their focus.

cgbystrom 15y ago

Makes me think of why Backblaze built their own "storage pod". http://blog.backblaze.com/2009/09/01/petabytes-on-a-budget-how-to-build-cheap-cloud-storage/ http://blog.backblaze.com/2009/09/01/petabytes-on-a-budget-h... According to them, their storage costs are ~20 times less than those of S3. A bit different use-case for sure. But as wave says, once you become a storage company you will inevitably need to do it in-house to be cost-effective.

partisan 15y ago

First comment, forgive me. "You can't be a storage company without having your own storage solution in backend." I am not sure that is necessarily true. There are plenty of web hosting resellers who are successful without ever buying a single server or a single line. They've repackaged and re-sold a service. Dropbox can operate in a similar fashion, re-packaging and reselling Amazon's services.

jagira 15y ago
Like Engine Yard and Heroku?
dandelany 15y ago
> Dropbox can operate in a similar fashion, re-packaging and reselling Amazon's services. Yes, they can, and apparently have, but they're getting to the size now that they can achieve some significant economies of scale by building out their own storage infrastructure. Their profit margin has to be pretty low with S3.

wmf 15y ago

When SmugMug got large, didn't they move from in-house storage to S3? Granted, one of the reasons was cash flow, which isn't as much of a concern for a VC-backed startup.

SwellJoe 15y ago
I'd wager that "large" SmugMug is vastly smaller than Dropbox (probably comparable to Dropbox of a year or two ago). I'm certain Dropbox is storing orders of magnitude more data than SmugMug at this point in time.