Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why Dropbox Succeeded and Syncplicity Didn’t

wetzler.me

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 70 posts

Re: Why Dropbox Succeeded and Syncplicity Didn’t

#31

Post by jacquesm »

jamesteow wrote: post #29
jacquesm wrote: post #13

How do you even pronounce syncplicity? Dropbox is a nobrainer in just about every language that is somewhat relevant on the internet for commercial reasons, that alone would give them an edge. Sycn?what? Oh, never mind, I'll just use dropbox. Cutesy names are rarely worth the downside. Keep it short, simple, easy to spell and pronounceable in an un-ambiguous way. Or you'll never even get to the point where you have t…

I'll download anything with a crappy name as long as the functionality is there. I really couldn't care less. Do I really think Apple is a great name for a computer manufacturer? Definitely not on the surface. But they ran with it and now it's accepted as one of the strongest brands on the planet.

Hard to find a more universally understood symbol in the western world other than the cross (and that's a bit much for a computer company). I think it was an excellent choice.

Re: Why Dropbox Succeeded and Syncplicity Didn’t

#33

Post by 6ren »

> After I left Syncplicity, I ran into the CEO of Dropbox and asked him my burning question: "Why don't you support multi-folder synchronization?" His answer was classic Dropbox. They built multi-folder support early on and did limited beta testing with it, but they couldn't get the UI right. It confused people and created too many questions. It was too hard for the average consumer to setup. So it got shelved.

When I can't get something right, I keep on trying. Maybe not always a good idea.

Re: Why Dropbox Succeeded and Syncplicity Didn’t

#34

Post by guptaneil »

As they say, keep it simple, stupid.

To be fair, most companies that complicate their feature set don't do it because they enjoy writing more code. It's just difficult to focus on your core competency when a simple product sounds boring on paper. It's so much harder to pitch to a VC or potential employee. Who wants to support a product that's just going to sync one folder instead of your entire system? But it's always the companies that manage to make it through that stage that succeed.

Re: Why Dropbox Succeeded and Syncplicity Didn’t

#35

Post by eru »

jamesteow wrote: post #29
jacquesm wrote: post #13

How do you even pronounce syncplicity? Dropbox is a nobrainer in just about every language that is somewhat relevant on the internet for commercial reasons, that alone would give them an edge. Sycn?what? Oh, never mind, I'll just use dropbox. Cutesy names are rarely worth the downside. Keep it short, simple, easy to spell and pronounceable in an un-ambiguous way. Or you'll never even get to the point where you have t…

I'll download anything with a crappy name as long as the functionality is there. I really couldn't care less. Do I really think Apple is a great name for a computer manufacturer? Definitely not on the surface. But they ran with it and now it's accepted as one of the strongest brands on the planet.

I don't really see how the success of `Apple' contradicts " Keep it short, simple, easy to spell and pronounceable in an un-ambiguous way."

Re: Why Dropbox Succeeded and Syncplicity Didn’t

#36

Post by eru »

jacquesm wrote: post #31
jamesteow wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll download anything with a crappy name as long as the functionality is there. I really couldn't care less. Do I really think Apple is a great name for a computer manufacturer? Definitely not on the surface. But they ran with it and now it's accepted as one of the strongest brands on the planet.

Hard to find a more universally understood symbol in the western world other than the cross (and that's a bit much for a computer company). I think it was an excellent choice.

> Hard to find a more universally understood symbol in the western world [...]

Sun!

Re: Why Dropbox Succeeded and Syncplicity Didn’t

#37

Post by jacquesm »

eru wrote: post #36
jacquesm wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hard to find a more universally understood symbol in the western world other than the cross (and that's a bit much for a computer company). I think it was an excellent choice.

> Hard to find a more universally understood symbol in the western world [...] Sun!

Good one! I totally dropped the ball there, I searched for things too close to home :)

Re: Why Dropbox Succeeded and Syncplicity Didn’t

#38

Post by eru »

JacobAldridge wrote: post #21
jim_h wrote: post #2

People probably also had an easier time spelling 'Dropbox', than they did remembering 'Syncplicity'.

And for us on the bleeding edge, spelling 'getdropbox'

Nowadays, users are using Google instead of typing URLs. Even if they know they URL.

Re: Why Dropbox Succeeded and Syncplicity Didn’t

#39

Post by eru »

larrik wrote: post #6
thibaut_barrere wrote: post #4

It's so easy to overlook the benefits of staying obsessively focused. Quickly though, almost in your back, each single bit/feature/line of code added to the mix multiplies with the others, and it's over already.

Non-programmers tend to think that adding a software feature is akin to adding on to a house. Sure, it take some effort and money, but the resulting house is surely better, right? (This isn't always true, of course, but still) In reality, adding a software feature is often like adding onto a house in the center of it, expanding the rest of the house around it to make room. Suddenly the job looks a lot tougher.

Or perhaps if you told them, it's like adding scenes to a film, they'd understand. There's a reason for deleted scenes.

Re: Why Dropbox Succeeded and Syncplicity Didn’t

#40

Post by neild »

VMG wrote: post #9
larrik wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for linking to the original. There's some real gems in here from the founder of Syncplicity. For instance, not having a Mac client meant that the tech press wouldn't touch it. Then, they wouldn't write about it. That's pretty enlightening.

It is a little contradiction to the statement "My philosophy is that they're right if their feature request is right only if it works for 80% of your customers." . Apparently sometimes a small minority of customers still can make all the difference.

Macs are a small minority of the total computer market. They're a huge percentage of the trailing edge, however--the tech-savvy people who are willing to try a new service like Dropbox or Syncplicity.

Leaving out Mac support in this case is like opening a coffee shop that sells $4 lattes, but can only be reached by people driving beat-up old Fords and Chevys.

Post reply on HN