Everpix, Snapchat, and the Startup Lie

Re:Everpix, Snapchat, and the Startup Lie by spamizbad on Friday November 08, 2013 @01:39AM (#6694814)

This wouldn't have been enough to save them, but if your AWS bill is $35,000/month, it's likely much cheaper to buy (or even lease) hardware and co-locate -- even if you factor in making 1-2 new hires to support the hardware.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Everpix, Snapchat, and the Startup Lie by steveklabnik on Friday November 08, 2013 @06:48AM (#6695584)

They were making enough money to pay the AWS bill; it was the salaries that were too much. They were profitable per-user, they just didn't have enough users.

(by 'much' I mean volume, not amount. Developers are expensive.)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Everpix, Snapchat, and the Startup Lie by wensing on Friday November 08, 2013 @01:40AM (#6694819)

I'm guessing the effort to switch to a different cloud wasn't something they wanted to invest in?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Everpix, Snapchat, and the Startup Lie by jbverschoor on Friday November 08, 2013 @02:46AM (#6695020)

I'm guessing they just didn't care, because they were VC backed, and didn't understand that 2M is not that much money if you have 6 people and a storage-based hosting service.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Everpix, Snapchat, and the Startup Lie by eikenberry on Friday November 08, 2013 @03:21AM (#6695121)

You underestimate the costs associated with hardware. Multiple locations, redundant tier 1 pipes, 1-2 new hires per location, etc. While you can save some money, it isn't as much as you'd think.

[ Parent | on HN ]