Live data from Hacker News

Dropbox S-1

sec.gov

101–110 of 404 posts

Re: Dropbox S-1

#101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those numbers are even more impressive given that 2 years ago they had $600m in revenues with a net loss of $300m

would like to see more evidence and proof those numbers are credible...

Dropbox's numbers are in their S1 filing and Box's in their financials already linked. Are you questioning the legitimacy of these filings?

Re: Dropbox S-1

#102

I'm not surprised to see net neutrality mentioned as a risk factor. Our platform depends on the quality of our users’ access to the internet. Certain features of our platform require significant bandwidth and fidelity to work effectively. Internet access is frequently provided by companies that have significant market power that could take actions that degrade, disrupt or increase the cost of user access to our platf…

No, the fiduciary duty is not that prescriptive. The courts aren’t going to second-guess whether a corporation is taking the profit-maximizing action at all times.

Re: Dropbox S-1

#104

Tip: Never pay for Dropbox at $99/year. It's repeatedly discounted throughout the year at Dell's website for $60, and often also comes with a $25 Dell gift card. So effectively, its value is $35/year, and you can buy multiple codes, redeem them, so you'd be effectively paying in advance for as long as you want, at 1/3rd of the price.

any link for this? I am planning to renew my plan.

[deleted]

Re: Dropbox S-1

#105
post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always find juicy information in the S1 that doesn't get reported on right away. Off the top of my head: * Reliance and risks of Zynga in the Facebook S-1 * Customer acquisition costs in the Blue Apron S-1 * Growth specifics and positioning of algorithms in the StitchFix S-1 * Infrastructure costs in the Snapchat S-1 Besides, an S-1 filing is not written in legalease, it's written in plain language. One of the targ…

Why infrastructure costs in Snapchat ? Doesn't look special ?

SNAP's infrastructure story in the S-1 filing was a mess. They had 2016 revenue of $404M with a cost of revenue of $451M. A 5 year, $2 billion dollar vendor lock-in to Google. They basically admitted that Google has them completely by the balls and it costs them $3 per user per year to keep the servers on. Both of these independently are very very bad, together it's a disaster.

Facebook was at $1/user/year in their S-1, Twitter was From the SNAP S-1:

"We rely on Google Cloud for the vast majority of our computing, storage, bandwidth, and other services. Any disruption of or interference with our use of the Google Cloud operation would negatively affect our operations and seriously harm our business."

"We have committed to spend $2 billion with Google Cloud over the next five years and have built our software and computer systems to use computing, storage capabilities, bandwidth, and other services provided by Google, some of which do not have an alternative in the market."

Re: Dropbox S-1

#106

Tip: Never pay for Dropbox at $99/year. It's repeatedly discounted throughout the year at Dell's website for $60, and often also comes with a $25 Dell gift card. So effectively, its value is $35/year, and you can buy multiple codes, redeem them, so you'd be effectively paying in advance for as long as you want, at 1/3rd of the price.

any link for this? I am planning to renew my plan.

You can add an Alert on Slickdeals to notify you. There was one last week for $70/year [0], but it's no longer active.

[0] https://slickdeals.net/f/11225815-dropbox-annual-subscriptio...

Re: Dropbox S-1

#107

I'm not surprised to see net neutrality mentioned as a risk factor. Our platform depends on the quality of our users’ access to the internet. Certain features of our platform require significant bandwidth and fidelity to work effectively. Internet access is frequently provided by companies that have significant market power that could take actions that degrade, disrupt or increase the cost of user access to our platf…

They could also call out the flip side though, right? Dropbox could negotiate deals with the ISPs to "box out" smaller competitors. Maybe it costs them upfront but it also solidifies them in the market.

> Dropbox could negotiate deals with the ISPs to "box out" smaller competitors. Maybe it costs them upfront but it also solidifies them in the market.

Yes, if you're a short sighted MBA that wants to encourage your own extortion

Re: Dropbox S-1

#108

I'm not surprised to see net neutrality mentioned as a risk factor. Our platform depends on the quality of our users’ access to the internet. Certain features of our platform require significant bandwidth and fidelity to work effectively. Internet access is frequently provided by companies that have significant market power that could take actions that degrade, disrupt or increase the cost of user access to our platf…

They could also call out the flip side though, right? Dropbox could negotiate deals with the ISPs to "box out" smaller competitors. Maybe it costs them upfront but it also solidifies them in the market.

+1, I think it’s sad to have to consider this, but business/capitalism is more of a chess game, especially if the shareholders perspective is the driving decision force.

Re: Dropbox S-1

#109

I'm not surprised to see net neutrality mentioned as a risk factor. Our platform depends on the quality of our users’ access to the internet. Certain features of our platform require significant bandwidth and fidelity to work effectively. Internet access is frequently provided by companies that have significant market power that could take actions that degrade, disrupt or increase the cost of user access to our platf…

They could also call out the flip side though, right? Dropbox could negotiate deals with the ISPs to "box out" smaller competitors. Maybe it costs them upfront but it also solidifies them in the market.

The same move could also be considered defensive, like Netflix, which was essentially forced to do that.

Re: Dropbox S-1

#110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why infrastructure costs in Snapchat ? Doesn't look special ?

Their infrastructure commitments are ridiculously high. "In its disclosure, Snap has said that it is contractually obligated to “spend $2 billion with Google Cloud over the next five years and have built our software and computer systems to use computing, storage capabilities, bandwidth, and other services provided by Google.” Of the current losses at Snap, more than 80 percent of those funds go straight into Google’…

Imagine the sales commission on that one. “Here’s a $10B - Closed Won”.

When talking about deals that are the enterprise valuations of Fortune 500 companies, do you value the sale as if it were an acquisition? Or, some other way?

Post reply on HN