3 ms·

I'm curious to see some hacker discussion on this, though I can't think of anything to contribute myself...

• michaelneale 19y ago
  Me too. The numbers look good. I presume they must be nicely profitable for those numbers. Unless the hardware and energy costs are too high (rails is a bit power hungry). I wonder why they took on investment from Jeff Bezos - maybe it really it just to have involvement of Jeff Bezos (which would be entirely sensible) not to do with money. Good on them I say.
  • robmnl 19y ago
    It's probably not about the money. Nice numbers that they have there, much more than I expected.
• mdemare 19y ago
  They have 4.5 messages and 6.5 to-do items per basecamp user account. That suggests to me that the number of active users is 10 or 20 times lower (100000 to 200000 users). Even if only 20% of those are paying, that's enough to be very profitable. Given these numbers, I'd estimate that they'd serve 3-15 billion pages per year. With 100 CPUs, that's 1-5 requests per second per CPU. Of course, what matters is peak usage, not average.
• tx 19y ago
  From my personal (not very broad) experience and from talking to people who ran/developed free websites with accounts, a typical ratio of total accounts vs active accounts is 10:1, perhaps 10:3 if you are really good. On top of that (depends on the service) you may have a significant percentage of active accounts that represent the same user, but 10% of active accounts seems like a safe bet. TB uploaded/downloaded numbers are really useless, they just thrown them in to look more impressive I suppose. This means they probably have 20-40K of real active BaseCamp users.