My god people, he just described a toaster. Is a toaster awesome because its operation is straightforward?
Or, if you don't like that example, compare it to just about any online game. Consider the incredible complexity and operation requirements of Call of Duty (or whatever you like) and then come up with an adjective for it. How about "awesome". Well, no, that won't do, because Dropbox is "awesome" and Call of Duty is several 1000 times more awesome, by far.
Not to mention that most games are also playable by non-technical people.
Get some perspective people. Fanboyism is really pathetic and there's a lot of it going on right here.
> Is a toaster awesome because its operation is straightforward?
Yes. We all own one don't we? Ever tried to toast bread without a toaster? It takes far more effort, is far less efficient, and the results are usually far less consistent.
There's a possibility that this guy's opinion is also the consensus opinion in which case I'm not going to win any arguments. This was all a semantic misunderstanding. When I think of the word "awesome" I think of something that inspires "awe", which I think is beyond the scope of file syncing.
Let me ask you guys one thing though: Is there anyone here willing to admit that they would be incapable of making a workable clone of dropbox in a reasonable amount of time--not on the same scale, of course. The fact that almost everyone who comes to this website could produce something of that complexity is maybe a clue into all this irrationality. Most of us, by contrast, couldn't make Call of Duty (a game which, actually, I've never played). Maybe we're setting our standards where our capabilities are?
> When I think of the word "awesome" I think of something that inspires "awe", which I think is beyond the scope of file syncing.
I see your point. But having struggled with file syncing for literally decades, having somebody come along and make it so easily that it seems unimpressive and obvious really is very cool.
It's kinda like the old adage, "the best special FX in a movie are the ones you don't notice."
Yes, I would admit I can't make it, and I am a reasonable competent developer (admittedly I'm a DBA first and a developer second and I tend to do different types of apps when I do development, but...).
Remember there is a difference between making synching software, which is relatively easy, and making synching software that is absolutely reliable (so far as I've seen) and easy to use for anyone. These things are relatively hard.
Now, to do that and produce a client for every major OS out there as well as a web interface... Yes, I am impressed.
I just wish they had one smaller tier out there though. It would be alot easier to justify say $60 a year on my tight budget than it is $10 a month (smallest paid tier last I checked...)
Before Dropbox, there were already 80+ attempts at doing exactly the same thing by various other companies (Microsoft by itself was responsible for at least eight of them concurrently.), and none of them worked well enough that they were ever adopted by anyone you've heard of. Dropbox is just right, and not for technological reasons, but rather for perfect customer fit.
To put it another way—it takes more people to build a bridge than to craft a samurai sword, but which metalworker brought more experience to bear? Games are regularly pushed out by developers just starting in the industry—all that's required of them is a willingness to be on the bleeding edge of graphics hardware APIs, and precious, precious manhours. Dropbox, on the other hand, could only have been designed by someone with an extremely high aptitude for user interfaces.
I think you are missing a certain perspective that some of the commentators here are sharing. If you take Swombat's perspective as an entrepreneur that both greatly appreciates Dropbox as a utility, but also sees how it's ease of use makes the company potentially very lucrative and wants the same level of craftsmanship for his own company. Then these things blend to make and awesome product. Similarly, the ipod was awesome for those who love music.
I don't know Swombat, so I don't mean to misattribute thoughts to him, but I believe there is truth to the perspective I described. Also, I am not suggesting you "just don't get startups" or anything dumb like that.
So by your logic, if they cut the code base in half, took out everything that made it just work. We would then have something that easily looks twice as complex and this would be twice as awesome?
Or, if you don't like that example, compare it to just about any online game. Consider the incredible complexity and operation requirements of Call of Duty (or whatever you like) and then come up with an adjective for it. How about "awesome". Well, no, that won't do, because Dropbox is "awesome" and Call of Duty is several 1000 times more awesome, by far.
Not to mention that most games are also playable by non-technical people.
Get some perspective people. Fanboyism is really pathetic and there's a lot of it going on right here.