Live data from Hacker News

Why Dropbox Succeeded and Syncplicity Didn’t

wetzler.me

51–60 of 70 posts

Re: Why Dropbox Succeeded and Syncplicity Didn’t

#51
This reminds me of something I read earlier:

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.

Anyone else reminded of the other article, "How Steve Jobs 'out-Japanned' Japan"?: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/g/a/2011/01/28/... :

Jobs's immersion in Zen and passion for design almost certainly exposed him to the concept of ma, a central pillar of traditional Japanese aesthetics. Like many idioms relating to the intimate aspects of how a culture sees the world, it's nearly impossible to accurately explain -- it's variously translated as "void," "space" or "interval" -- but it essentially describes how emptiness interacts with form, and how absence shapes substance. If someone were to ask you what makes a ring a meaningful object -- the circle of metal it consists of, or the emptiness that that metal encompasses? -- and you were to respond "both," you've gotten as close to ma as the clumsy instrument of English allows.

While Jobs has never invoked the term in public -- one of the aspects of his genius is the ability to keep even his most esoteric assertions in the realm of the instantly accessible -- ma is at the core of the Jobsian way. And Jobs' single-minded adherence to this idiosyncratically Japanese principle is, ironically, what has allowed Apple to compete with and beat Japan's technology titans -- most notably the company that for the past four decades dominated the world of consumer electronics: Sony.

Re: Why Dropbox Succeeded and Syncplicity Didn’t

#52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'Dropbox' is one of the best product names I've ever heard. Someone mentioned it to me once and I instantly knew exactly what it must be, and remembered it forever.

Rapidshare was pretty good too (as a name, the service sucks) and it surprises me that they never managed to expand in to dropbox's territory. And with public shared folders dropbox is definitely expanding in to theirs.

There is a lot of money in what RapidShare do.

I was working for a company in the same field which was doing maybe a tenth of the traffic RapidShare and we got a cash offer well into eight figures. This was a company with four employees and zero funding.

Re: Why Dropbox Succeeded and Syncplicity Didn’t

#53
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.

A similar thing happened with a famous Word Processor not having a word count. The designers found that nobody used word count - except for Journalists. Guess who write reviews of new word processors?

What? How can that be true? Were you ever a student?

Re: Why Dropbox Succeeded and Syncplicity Didn’t

#54
post #40
post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

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.

I agree with your first paragraph but would note that I think you're shooting for "Leading edge" rather than "trailing edge."

Re: Why Dropbox Succeeded and Syncplicity Didn’t

#56
The answer is in the names. People want a dropbox - a place to drop stuff. The don't want simple syncing. Syncing is part of the implementation of sharing a "drop box." Syncplicity the name but also the philosophy - the product was designed around syncing instead of an actual user need.

Re: Why Dropbox Succeeded and Syncplicity Didn’t

#57

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 alway…

I nodded vigorously through every sentence of your comment. Well done, and good to see you're a computer scientist and didn't have to rely on jargon to make your point.

Re: Why Dropbox Succeeded and Syncplicity Didn’t

#58

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…

The name "Syncplicity" is also ironic because the co-founder said part of their failure was making their product too complicated.

Re: Why Dropbox Succeeded and Syncplicity Didn’t

#59
post #33

> 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…

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

I'd say it's a good idea, as long as it's core to what you're doing... if in the case of Dropbox, it was an ancillary feature, it's good to cut your losses.

If it's part of your core business model - get it right.

Re: Why Dropbox Succeeded and Syncplicity Didn’t

#60
post #12

Dropbox was a YC company, which meant they had quite a bit of free press and access to a lot of valley connections. I would imagine that had a lot to do with their success.

Notice this too, on the marketing front: we had issues getting the press excited at launch. We built a fantastic Windows client. 3 years ago, everyone was running Windows . We were so excited to show the press, yet they all had Macs. Walt Mossberg wouldn't write about our product because it was PC only. Months after we hired our PR agency, we found out that they had never even used our product... because they too onl…

This is an interesting point on knowing your audience. In this case, the audience was small but influential.
Post reply on HN