I think the fundamental differences between Dropbox and iCloud is the sharing feature and Windows/Linux/Mac/etc support. iCloud is never going to be on Windows and our company uses Dropbox to share project resources and our machines are a mixed of PCs and Macs so iCloud means nothing for us.
No, the other half is getting people to use the product. It's easier if you can make it seamless and bake it in rather than a third party solution. They probably wanted to own the solution to leverage any trust they have with their customers.
It's the same thing that happened with backups, they came up with Time Machine. Pretty much all the Mac users I know have a Time Machine backup.
I believe the same thing will happen with version control once Versions support is wide spread. Normal people will know about keeping versions of their work rather than multiple differently named files.
I bet it comes with Quicktime, iTunes and a lot of extra plugins which are absolutely necessary for to run the software. /joke
Does the Windows versions suck as much as iTunes? (including installing that pesky apple updater).
Going on-topic, I have a dropbox account but the 2 GB limit (which I managed to make 3.5GB after referring) is very limited. In addition they do not support WebDav.
I recently opened a free Box.net account and I am really happy with it. Because it has webdav support (box.net/dav) I can "mount" the disk in any computer as a drive (windows) or folder (linux).
I personally prefer this approach to the DropBox "replicate everything on each PC you enter". But I understand they are solutions to different issues.
Don't forget Android, Windows Mobile, and Blackberry. iCloud is available on Windows, but I don't think it will be going to competing mobile platforms any time soon.
I know there's a lot involved with changing but I recommend not necessarily a change of the brand DuckDuckGo but the domain name. It really ... seriously and I am not exaggerating, it's DuckDuckGo.com is unbearably uncomfortable to type. Now that you have funding, considering getting DDG.com or duckgg.com or something.. just not the full name.
I'd say that's even worse. Look, if the tech is good enough it should survive a total rebrand. That's what they need right now. Without it, if they're too arrogant/stuckup/cocky/egotistical to make the change they're f'd anyway.
It's no longer a polite suggestion, it's a necessity. If they want to take the next step, they will need to rebrand and now is the perfect time to do it.
Really? I've talk to several VCs that were very active previously and they all agreed that valuations are frothy and now is not the time to invest. Naturally valuations are going to be lower since that's what the buyer's perception of that market.
It's disturbing to read XXXXX "has been burning through its $1.1 million quickly" and all they could think of is raising more money. Why about revenue? Did the idea of making money just drop off the face of the Silicon Valley?
That's just to show that inexperience entrepreneurs like Jessica ( not saying she's not a smart person ) has hype caught up with reality. It's not surprising that these entrepreneurs will fight a long and tough battle ahead.
Go read Jessica's blog post from August - she advocated raising as much money as you could, etc. I asked the same question as you did on her blog but never got a response. What's wrong with you know making money to grow instead of trying to just grab vc cash.
The only time it make senses to grab as much money as you can is when you're building to flip. I've always viewed raising as little as you can if you are serious about building a sustainable business.
No. It makes sense to raise as little money as possible as you can when you are building to flip. Think about it. I'll explain the math if you can't figure it out.
Not all new companies are startups. Startups are companies that are in search of a business model. They are building something that is at least somewhat capital intensive before they can get revenue.
There is a lot to be said about bootstrapping, and if you can do it then that is awesome. But there are lots of ideas that require some cash to get off the ground.
You are right about the math and I respect that you did that with delicious but not many entrepreneurs are like you.
No matter how it much it "make sense" to not raise more, most entrepreneurs will do the opposite and not take the risk of running out of cash before the exit. It's like the blue and red pill.
I'm not sure how you define startups but that's subjective and I think all new companies are startups. I would say most new companies have a clear revenue model in the beginning and it's all about making it happen or pivot till you got it right. There are some that don't have one at the early stage and it's also rare to see one that had gotten successful versus most that just got bought without even breaking even or mmde a single dime.
We charge for non incentivized installs of games. We have some of the biggest game developers in the world as customers paying us right now. If you are interested please get in touch.
