---
title: Everpix and the ephemeral nature of startups
author: George Mandis <george@mand.is>
date: 2014-02-04
tags: post, post, startups, startup culture, business, armchair economist
---

<p>There was a company called <a href="http://www.everpix.com/">Everpix</a> that launched in late 2011. They were a photo sharing and organizing app/service that was seemingly well liked — I'd seen them mentioned on <a href="http://daringfireball.net">Daring Fireball</a> and in tangential circles — and provided unique tools to help you organize your photographs. Unlike a lot of internet-based companies that take on VC funding, they were trying to be profitable from the start and didn't offer their services for free. The prices were something like $5/mo or $40 for a year and no practical limits for the number of photos you could upload.</p>
<p>For an interesting comparison's sake, <a href="https://db.tt/Kkrd94h">Dropbox</a> starts at $9.99/mo or $99/year if prepaid for 100GB,  <a href="https://support.google.com/mail/answer/2375123?hl=en">Google</a> will extend your storage limits across all of their services to 100GB for $4.99/mo and <a href="http://support.apple.com/kb/HT5879">Apple</a> will charge you $100/year for an extra 50GB of iCloud storage. These comparisons aren't particularly fair, but I mention it only to establish that Everpix's pricing scheme seems seasonable in relation to other  cloud service prices, if a bit on the low side.</p>
<p>They ended up going under in late 2013. What's really interesting is that they released all of their data: finances, service metrics, notes from conversations with investors. You can peruse it all here: <a href="https://github.com/everpix/Everpix-Intelligence">https://github.com/everpix/Everpix-Intelligence</a></p>
<p>The month before they shutdown was their best month they'd ever had : 8,900+ new users, $41k in sales and 86 million photo uploads. See: <a href="https://github.com/everpix/Everpix-Intelligence/blob/master/Investor%20Reports/2013-08.md">https://github.com/everpix/Everpix-Intelligence/blob/master/Investor%20Reports/2013-08.md</a>.</p>
<p>It's all interesting stuff to someone like me who is peripherally lumped-in with startup culture and business. Reading through it answers a number of long-standing questions and confirmed some long-held suspicions on the ephemeral nature of such enterprises.</p>
<p>This is the most interesting document to me:<br />
<a href="https://github.com/everpix/Everpix-Intelligence/blob/master/Financials.md">https://github.com/everpix/Everpix-Intelligence/blob/master/Financials.md</a></p>
<p>Over the lifetime of their business Everpix made $280,696.38 but had operating expenses of $2,665,192.34. Their income doesn't even cover the cost of their server infrastructure which came in at $394,588.35 via <a href="http://aws.amazon.com">Amazon Web Services</a>.</p>
<p>In the end they had 45,000 users and 5,500 subscribers but would've literally had to add a zero to their pricing plans to achieve profitability. Suddenly a $50/mo and $400/year service doesn't compare so favorably.</p>
<p>I think it's fascinating and crazy to get a peek into the numbers behind startup culture. It seems to kind of confirm much of what I've often feared, wondered and assumed; selling out to one of the big companies (Google, Facebook, Apple, Twitter) isn't just the most viable option, it's essentially the <em>only</em> option with this kind of approach. What seemed like the most probable endgame is the <em>only</em> endgame. It's not even close.</p>
<p>I've always been a bit skeptical of VC-funded startups with "free" offerings, but this sheds a whole new light on that fear. Everpix looked like one of the <em>good</em> ones: a company that focused on actually making money from the start. But looking at the numbers... They were so much farther from profitability than I'd expected it was shocking.</p>
<p>I'm going to be exceedingly skeptical of an VC-backed company going forward I think. Using these services is starting to feel like some kind of bizarro, Kickstarter audition for which service one of the big web companies should buy-out next.</p>