Dropbox is only a 'feature' if you already have everything else, an operating system, and an installed base of a large number of devices.
But dropbox the product, not dropbox the feature is what exists today.
Seamless filesharing at an affordable pricepoint (including a free tier) across all devices and across all major operating systems, including linux, apple and windows. And that includes versioning and so on.
So it isn't a feature.
Don't forget that the universe of computing is far larger than any single operating system, no matter how successful, and that this will likely always be the case.
Dropbox is infrastructure, not a feature. And it's fine to run infrastructure, you can actually charge for it and people will pay. See also: toll roads, ISPs, the petroleum industry, your power company and so on.
Commoditizing the essence of storage wasn't such a bad idea at all, and to turn it into a product, not just a feature is what gives it long term viability.
Forbes being a print magazine I'd bet good money that Forbes the print edition will die long before dropbox.
Besides dropbox having about 250 million factors in the equation helping it to stay alive a little longer Forbes writing about it in two different places on one day will help dropbox just that much more. There is no such thing as bad advertising. Plenty of the Forbes visitors reading this might think, ok, dropbox is going to die, but until then this is mighty handy.
The article basically says "I don't pay for dropbox, therefore it will fail." The backup for this is "Dropbox is a feature, not a product." And "other companies that I have made this statement about have failed."
Somehow this isn't convincing for me at all.
One website I'm familiar with has a freemium product, lots of users there pay just to support the site, even if they never actually use the premium bits.
There's a little company called Microsoft, which sold OSes. The OS is just a feature of computers. They had the chops to smooth over the vertical issues (drivers, etc), and got boosted by the horizontal advantages (your programs work on any computer with Windows). So the OS became a product, not a feature, because it carved out a large horizontal niche, blowing away the vertically integrated "features".
Such a loose definition that really can be bent to fit whatever point you want to make.
Forbes is a feature not a product, Apple could provide the content themselves and people would just get it on their iPhone, who needs a seperate company creating it?
Gmail is a feature not a product, it belongs in your phone's operating system or in a product such as MS Office.
Realistically feature vs. product is subjective, it is entirely down to whether users want to use a seperate service on an integrated one.
To move away from the web startup world, how about satnav systems as an example. We all know they can be built into cars, and that's been happening for a while, and for those cars that have them, it is certainly a feature of the car. That hasn't killed the companies selling dedicated systems, such as TomTom.
Or for computer hardware, speakers are really just a feature of your computer, not a seperate product, yet people still buy speakers that aren't a part of their PC, just connected to them.
Both these examples, it is possible to get them as features rather than products, but the demand for standalone products has kept them in existance.
The competition isn't much better on the MS side. Windows has the bulk of the desktop/laptop users, but it's pretty unlikely for them to offer a file sync client that'll work with the iPhone or Android, and Windows Phone 7 is still looking for an audience.
I do agree that Dropbox could do a lot to make their person-to-person sharing more compelling and easy.
And with that I realized I had wasted my time reading this article. How can a journalist be so oblivious to the primary use case of a product?
Yes, this would be great. A lot of this article seems to be based on the author's very loose and short definition of a feature, so I didn't really get a lot out of it. A comparison would help me better understand the point trying to be made here.
If they don't, they'll die.
This isn't particularly on topic though.
Better device and product integration? That will require more and more cooperation from Windows, Apple, and Google.
I'd quite like it if they had Music syncing option, mind.