Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the parent commenter used "understood" to mean "recognized." That said, I don't really understand the supposed misunderstanding you point out. It seems that dang argues that "the exchange was pleasant and successful." I've never seen someone claim otherwise. Rather, I've seen it used as an example of how technical users can fail to recognize the complexity inherent in their workflows, and therefore may also f…
No, it's not that simple. This is an instance of context collapse; people dunk on that exchange because they believe it's an HN person belittling Dropbox as a product, when in fact it was an HN person helpfully offering notes on a YC application.
Whether the poster was "belittling Dropbox as a product" or "helpfully offering notes" seems like a judgment one can make about the exchange, regardless of poster's intent. I never understood this to be the reason it was referenced, more the SMOP thing. But I hear what you're saying about the details getting warped over time. (edit: And I do think people sometimes use it as a case of "if you listen to everyone's feedback..." but I think that still rings true: regardless of the judgment you place on it, it could have been demoralizing to Dropbox's founders.)