7 ms·

> If I were Dropbox I'd simply view this as market validation And if I were Dropbox, I'd worry like hell. Google isn't depending on making GDrive profitable f

> If I were Dropbox I'd simply view this as market validation And if I were Dropbox, I'd worry like hell. Google isn't depending on making GDrive profitable from fees, so they can literally give it away.

wildmXranat 15y ago
Indeed. Competition on this market space is almost guaranteed to be a race to the bottom. Dropbox will have to respond by concentrating on features to set itself apart.
- rgraham 15y ago
  They should concentrate on making users really happy. Features may or may not figure in there. It would be pretty tough to compete with an over 10,000 engineer company with incredible building blocks on features.
  - dorkitude 15y ago
    That headcount is part of the reason it's easier to compete with Google. The design of the Google organization rewards micro-optimizations (use data for every decision, or else your ass isn't covered) and risk-aversion (set low KPI's and game them to get the biggest bonus each quarter). By contrast, the design of the innovation space in general rewards peak-jumping, risk-taking, and a healthy blend of intuition and data. And it already selected Dropbox. Don't get me wrong, the (layers and layers of) leadership at Google want to make killer products. But at the level of the lowly implementer, not only is making killer products only a peripheral concern, but those who can and want to make killer products tend to self-select out of Google.
- AJ007 15y ago
  I can think of one huge feature: not giving all your personal data to the same company.
markokocic 15y ago
That's how Microsoft won the browser wars few years ago.
- jpdoctor 15y ago
  You lost me. MS put out a product for free that was competing with other products for free. Are you really saying that is the situation here?
  - richardw 15y ago
    Netscape initially charged for the browser. "Netscape Navigator was not free to the general public until January 1998" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netscape http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netscape
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
    - jpdoctor 15y ago
      Good example. MS successfully killed off Netscape (the company) within a few years by bundling an inferior browser. It also prevented them from entering desktop OS, which was perceived as a threat back in the day. Edit: FYI, Mosaic was the one I had in mind, which was free.
      - arihant 15y ago
        In it's day, IE was not an inferior browser. Quiet the opposite, actually.
        cyberguppy 15y ago
        "In it is day, IE was not an inferior browser. [Making little or no noise] the opposite, actually." Putting aside the snarky remark about IE's apparent target audience, there are any number of contemporary sources which give examples of how your intended statement is factually incorrect. For example: http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f3800/v-e.pdf http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f3800/v-e.pdf
patio11 15y ago
You'd be surprised how difficult "giving it away" can be, even for Google. Google succeeded big on giving away email, search, and androids. Do I need to list up all the acquisitions and products that even with a mortal lock on navigation on the Internet Google couldn't convince people was worth at least $0?
- webignition 15y ago
  That would actually be a very interesting list. Hard to complete exhaustively, but a few relevant examples would be great!
  - patio11 15y ago
    Google Video (rescued by throwing a few billion at the competitor who was running away with the space), Lively (its like IMVU except without the users), Dodgeball, Wave, Google Page Creator (its like Weebly except without the users), Orkut (debatable whether one can put it in the failure column for not being FB but it certainly isn't FB), etc, etc.
    - microcentury 15y ago
      But Google 'gives everything away' (with indirect monetisation), both the products that succeed and the products that fail. So in that sense this is just a list of failed products which are the byproduct of innovation at such a scale, rather than an indication of what has worked and what has not for Google in the past. Surely in this case, going up against a competitor that needs to charge, Google would be at a massive advantage (legality aside) by not having to charge?
- jpdoctor 15y ago
  Dropbox can take the approach of not worrying if they want. Standing on years of head start perhaps. However: File sync strikes me as a lot closer to email than <insert failed acquisition here>. Additionally, it seems logical to build/ship GDrive right into android. I say again: I'd worry like hell.
pchristensen 15y ago
Google has given away lots of stuff without success. Worrying about a big competitor "crushing" you just because they announce a product is a sign of productitis. Symptoms include ignoring marketing, customer experience, and organizational focus.
jcampbell1 15y ago
Since it seems to be based on Google Documents, I think Dropbox will do just fine. There are few pages on the internet that I dislike more than the Google Documents start page. I actually feel annoyed every time I look at that auto generated shit list of files that is Google documents. It breaks every user interface convention for displaying a list of files. Navigating files is something I already know how to do, but Google is special and has figured out how to make it a chore.

wildmXranat 15y ago

Indeed. Competition on this market space is almost guaranteed to be a race to the bottom. Dropbox will have to respond by concentrating on features to set itself apart.

rgraham 15y ago
They should concentrate on making users really happy. Features may or may not figure in there. It would be pretty tough to compete with an over 10,000 engineer company with incredible building blocks on features.
- dorkitude 15y ago
  That headcount is part of the reason it's easier to compete with Google. The design of the Google organization rewards micro-optimizations (use data for every decision, or else your ass isn't covered) and risk-aversion (set low KPI's and game them to get the biggest bonus each quarter). By contrast, the design of the innovation space in general rewards peak-jumping, risk-taking, and a healthy blend of intuition and data. And it already selected Dropbox. Don't get me wrong, the (layers and layers of) leadership at Google want to make killer products. But at the level of the lowly implementer, not only is making killer products only a peripheral concern, but those who can and want to make killer products tend to self-select out of Google.
AJ007 15y ago
I can think of one huge feature: not giving all your personal data to the same company.

markokocic 15y ago

That's how Microsoft won the browser wars few years ago.

jpdoctor 15y ago
You lost me. MS put out a product for free that was competing with other products for free. Are you really saying that is the situation here?
- richardw 15y ago
  Netscape initially charged for the browser. "Netscape Navigator was not free to the general public until January 1998" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netscape http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Netscape
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
  - jpdoctor 15y ago
    Good example. MS successfully killed off Netscape (the company) within a few years by bundling an inferior browser. It also prevented them from entering desktop OS, which was perceived as a threat back in the day. Edit: FYI, Mosaic was the one I had in mind, which was free.
    - arihant 15y ago
      In it's day, IE was not an inferior browser. Quiet the opposite, actually.
      - cyberguppy 15y ago
        "In it is day, IE was not an inferior browser. [Making little or no noise] the opposite, actually." Putting aside the snarky remark about IE's apparent target audience, there are any number of contemporary sources which give examples of how your intended statement is factually incorrect. For example: http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f3800/v-e.pdf http://www.justice.gov/atr/cases/f3800/v-e.pdf

patio11 15y ago

You'd be surprised how difficult "giving it away" can be, even for Google. Google succeeded big on giving away email, search, and androids. Do I need to list up all the acquisitions and products that even with a mortal lock on navigation on the Internet Google couldn't convince people was worth at least $0?

webignition 15y ago
That would actually be a very interesting list. Hard to complete exhaustively, but a few relevant examples would be great!
- patio11 15y ago
  Google Video (rescued by throwing a few billion at the competitor who was running away with the space), Lively (its like IMVU except without the users), Dodgeball, Wave, Google Page Creator (its like Weebly except without the users), Orkut (debatable whether one can put it in the failure column for not being FB but it certainly isn't FB), etc, etc.
  - microcentury 15y ago
    But Google 'gives everything away' (with indirect monetisation), both the products that succeed and the products that fail. So in that sense this is just a list of failed products which are the byproduct of innovation at such a scale, rather than an indication of what has worked and what has not for Google in the past. Surely in this case, going up against a competitor that needs to charge, Google would be at a massive advantage (legality aside) by not having to charge?
jpdoctor 15y ago
Dropbox can take the approach of not worrying if they want. Standing on years of head start perhaps. However: File sync strikes me as a lot closer to email than <insert failed acquisition here>. Additionally, it seems logical to build/ship GDrive right into android. I say again: I'd worry like hell.

pchristensen 15y ago

Google has given away lots of stuff without success. Worrying about a big competitor "crushing" you just because they announce a product is a sign of productitis. Symptoms include ignoring marketing, customer experience, and organizational focus.

jcampbell1 15y ago

Since it seems to be based on Google Documents, I think Dropbox will do just fine. There are few pages on the internet that I dislike more than the Google Documents start page. I actually feel annoyed every time I look at that auto generated shit list of files that is Google documents. It breaks every user interface convention for displaying a list of files. Navigating files is something I already know how to do, but Google is special and has figured out how to make it a chore.