1. For a Linux user, you can already build such a system yourself quite trivially by getting an FTP account, mounting it locally with curlftpfs, and then using SVN or CVS on the mounted filesystem. From Windows or Mac, this FTP account could be accessed through built-in software.
2. It doesn't actually replace a USB drive. Most people I know e-mail files to themselves or host them somewhere online to be able to perform presentations, but they still carry a USB drive in case there are connectivity problems. This does not solve the connectivity issue.
3. It does not seem very "viral" or income-generating. I know this is premature at this point, but without charging users for the service, is it reasonable to expect to make money off of this?
Ultimately the comment was somewhat correct though. Dropbox's core product is a feature. It misidentified the competition as tech-savvy users, but ultimately it turned out to be MS/Apple/Google. And consequently when those competitors added that feature, Dropbox's growth has stalled and they've been flailing around to find a USP since.
It was enough to get a decade of VC money and even start breaking even in 2020, but it's a far more tumultuous journey than their initial user uptake would have indicated.
The point where they say that you can build it trivially and then proceed to list a bunch of obviously not trivial steps always gets me. It really captures that senior engineer vibe.
Considering the history of the Dropbox YC announcement on HN, surely you must be joking with #1. It is possibly the most famous HN incident of all time.
Note that most of the times people quote only the first item that is very technical.
The second one is legit. Most of the times I must give a presentation I'm requested to send the file earlier. (And I go with a USB drive just in case.)
I was a very early Dropbox adopter but eventually switched to OneDrive a few years back because they bundled Office 365 with 1 TB of storage. I just went and looked at the official Dropbox plans to see if there was a family plan similar to the 5 users I get with Office 365/OneDrive...and found their plan/pricing page overwhelming. There's rows upon rows of features to compare across versions like "Traffic and Insights" and the "Plus button" forcing me to keep scrolling just to see that a family plan costs $16.99 a month for 2 TB. No option for a cheaper plan with less storage. I feel like they are missing the mark when it comes to marketing to consumers here.
Dropbox always feels like it peaked early and has steadily gotten worse as they try to add more and more features to it.
> I feel like they are missing the mark when it comes to marketing to consumers here.
I get the impression they're relying on name recognition and first mover advantage to keep the simple users flowing in, while all of the extra features and GUI fluff are built out to attract some other audience that makes decisions by counting up how many different features are listed on each product page.
These days, I'm just happy that I haven't had to force-kill the Dropbox client in many months. I wish there was some way to go back to the days where they just synced my files for me, let me share a few things, and I didn't have to fight with their GUI all the time.
In my impression, they are removing useful features and adding unnecessary ones.
Since I joined over a decade ago, they have removed an extremely useful Public folder with the capability to generate direct links, limited the number of devices, and added a ton of features I never wanted from them, like Paper.
I‘m still at 52gb free Storage. But I just need 2. I’d even pay 2-3 bucks a month to get rid of the device limit. But I won’t pay for a terabyte I don’t need…
Yeah agree, public folders were great. I’m still a user of dropbox since early days but:
- I’m stupid and I kept a git repo in there, it became corrupt. Doesn’t surprise me but wondering what else is fragile in dropbox.
- Uploading pictures on mobile is really really slow. For some reason google photos on iOS is so much faster, like incomparably faster.
- Google photos also allows you to quickly get to all your pictures. Dropbox is… at best cumbersome, at worst really slow at fetching lots of pictures.
- make public folders a thing again for paying users. I’m sure this would create an awesome ecosystem of websites.
The speed of Google photos is actually breathtaking. The fact that you can instantly lag free scroll through tens of thousands of images and it all just loads instantly is quite impressive imo.
The problem with some of the competitors is they do not treat photos as its own thing separate from files. I think google did a great job understanding that photos are not just a folder of files but that they require their own dedicated software.
A lot of people had that realization early on. Google had Picasa and Apple had iPhoto, both of which were pretty good photo management software even before the mobile revolution.
I think that they removed public folders because some people started storing static files for their websites in it. As for why google photos are faster... I think it is because Photos resize images on device, while Dropbox uploads them in original size.
My belief is that they're trying to find a way to remain profitable. VCs expect returns, and with Dropbox's main feature now included by many other services like O365 and Drive, I would think that they're finding themselves forced to make such changes whether or not they want to.
If they were smart they would use their customer market as a loss lead. Years ago I'd use Dropbox for work because it was so easy to make a new folder and add some emails to it. Now a lot of people don't even have the client installed.
It used to be really great, you just have an "ender chest" folder that shows up on all your computers with a public folder that shows up on their web server. They screwed up the public folder pretty badly and I left after that.
Now we have syncthing anyway which is better anyway for a number of reasons and most people know git which works better on mobile devices.
Dropbox still has the best syncing tech [1][2] which handles complex situations with lots of files and responds instantly. That alone is worth it if you need it.
However the rest of the product is crap. Dropbox had a solid business with a "magic folder that syncs" but has been chasing new features and product lines with little success. Even the enterprise offering was far behind Box.com for years and now has tons of competition.
Maybe Dropbox's is the best out of a bunch of mediocre syncing solutions. However, I do wish to add that Dropbox struggles with scale: lots of small files slow down sync to a crawl and spin CPU at 100%.
Concretely, I had a certain folder with 100,000+ small files for some research I was doing with a collaborator. It took my laptop 24 hours to sync this folder, and throughout my CPU was at 100% throughout. For comparison, rsync got the same job done in a few minutes. See https://help.dropbox.com/accounts-billing/space-storage/file... , the above terrible experience is in line with this caveat.
Sure, but Rsync and Dropbox are very different. There's really no software option that handles that many small files well with the same features (realtime sync, folder moves, binary diffs, file history, etc).
Rsync is great for taking a snapshot and replicating it elsewhere, which is probably a better fit for research projects anyway.
Sounds to me like git has basically all those features (although you need to have plugins for the binary diffs and realtime would require frequent pull/push/rebase).
Both the official Dropbox client and Maestral take hours at high CPU usage to complete an initial sync of my 7 gigabyte Dropbox with 30 thousand files. Maybe sync is hard, maybe Dropbox's data representation is inefficient, maybe it's because both are written in Python, an inefficient language.
Can confirm without any references etc that I have found it to be vastly superior to all other syncs. Top of the pile for me is that it handles small changes in large files without reuploading the entire thing. That said, I havent used it for years.
One particular advantage of Dropbox is that it's vendor-neutral and on pretty much every platform I can think of. This is good for people like me who insist on having one foot in every ecosystem. Good luck finding, say, an iCloud or OneDrive client for Linux.
Now if only the iPad client could actually background upload files when you save files using the system file picker...
I’m a happy Dropbox customer because I use all of the 2TB space, they have a Linux client, and their syncing works far better than Google Drive and OneDrive. I can do things like modify git repositories, add and delete thousands of files, have files open for editing, rearrange large folders… - all within the Dropbox folder - and Dropbox manages to sync it without any issue, whereas when I tried the other two, there was a low threshold of “file change complexity” above which they choked.
I don’t use any of the add-on services like Paper.
I used to be disappointed that I couldn’t get an account larger than 2TB at a reasonable price, but then I adapted my workflow to split my data into hot/cold, with hot staying in Dropbox and cold going elsewhere. Because of this I could probably adapt to a smaller Dropbox account now.
Similar experience. I pay for the 100GB Google one plan which comes with the excellent google photos service and I went to see what dropbox offers and found their cheapest plan was extremely expensive comparatively and they offer less features. I'm just not sure how they even compete at this point when they do the same thing as every other cloud storage product but cost more. And you even have to pay extra for family sharing which is just free with Google.
I hate OneDrive, and I don't even USE it. I hate it because my corporate users taht use it have a constant stream of issues with it. It fails to sync constantly, the agent fails to load properly, or needs to be logged in again for some reason, etc. It's a never ending stream of failures with the heaviest users.
I hate OneDrive because Office apps have some extremely strange interaction with it. They are not always in sync with the main client.
There is nothing like changing an excel file, having it correctly modified locally but still seeing the old data in a linked PowerPoint because OneDrive didn't update.
It also managed to lose me a day of work once despite having saved the file regularly. None of my modifications were properly synched to the history.
I also hate how it pauses itself when I'm sharing my phone connection and tends to struggle when I restart it.
I used to really dislike Google Drive before my company migrated but between that and the abysmal outlook search I really miss Google.
Yup. That’s my experience, too. Also, on macOS the client UI is horrible. It’s slow and I’ve yet to find a way to open local files that it displays in the list of recently synced files.
+1 Some years ago I tied keeping a "biggish" backup in Google Drive. I really tried. Left the computer syncing for a week, without any progress indicator (only something generic, like syncing). I the end I went with Dropbox. It took a few days, but I could see actual progress happening.
I have no idea how I managed it as it was a long time ago, but I'm on exactly the plan that _everybody_ is crying out for. It might have been the result of some A-B test for all I know. I can't see any reference to it on any website, but it's 100 GB with reasonable annual pricing:
It comes with Dropbox Paper, etc. Also, Dropbox, if you're reading this and are thinking about taking it away from me I'm switching to OneDrive immediately, I'm already paying for Office 365 anyway.
This is one of the most frustrating things about being invested in the Apple ecosystem. I've hit the 200gb limit and I'll be damned if I'll pay 330% more for storage that I don't need. Instead I'm deleting my oldest photos from iCloud and moving them over to OneDrive.
I use Apple One (family) and can add storage on top of it. It’s not very many tiers, but 50GiB, 200GiB and 2TiB. Which puts storage at 250, 400 and 2200 in total. Adding 2TiB is 10 dollars a month (on top of the one subscription) which is cheap comparatively to what it used to cost (iirc).
Apple one of course only makes sense if you use other Apple services (I use music and tv+ so for me it’s a win win)
They're supposedly breaking even for the first time this month, after ten years, but growth is slowing dramatically. They have over 700 million users, but only 15 million paying users. Growth in paying users from 2019-2020 was only 8%, down from 12% the year before, and the numbers are more dramatic the farther back you go.
They're at cost parity with their primary competitors for the most basic plan ($9.99 for 1TB), but there are cheaper alternatives, especially for family plans. Dropbox doesn't have the economies of scale that Microsoft, Google, et. al. have, so storage remains a loss-leader for them. The only way they can make money is trying to upsell addons that most people don't want. If not for the inertia of being first to market, they wouldn't have many paying users. The year-over-year growth in paying customers says it all.
> There's rows upon rows of features to compare across versions
After you grow as a company and hire lots of engineers and your core product is "good enough", you have to try to pivot/stay relevant/compete/innovate I guess. Lots of manpower (I have no idea how large their engineering team is) need to be kept busy I guess?
This horrible obsession with exponential growth. It's not enough to maintain a core team of engineers and pass on those savings on the price in order to gain more customers.
I completely agree with your sentiment, but it puts the company in a difficult position when your competition offers similar functionality for "free" (because you already paid for Office or their primary revenue model is different).
I would guess security is a huge part of dropbox and you’re never “done” there. The first dropbox-like that gets breached can say good bye to their spot on the market.
That doesn't necessarily mean that each of those features should appear as a different row, or even be different between plans. If you can't figure out a way to make a comprehensive pricing page, the amount of features is not really an excuse.
This one is over 5 pages, with 5 different sections which don't even look triangle-shaped as you can usually expect from increasingly-priced plans.
Love Syncthing. Use it extensively across my Linux-Android-Windows devices. Where I really miss it is on iOS (I have just one Apple device - an iPad) and can't find a reliable Syncthing implementation/wrapper on the App Store.
That doesn't stop me using Syncthing though. I just use my iPad less. Which is a shame. I like the handwriting recognition it has. There's an app called Mobius Sync which promises Syncthing support but doesn't work quite as well.
Thanks for teh suggestion. I was surprised to find out there don’t even seem to be efforts to get the binary running on jailboken devices (unfortunately my knowledge of iOS internals is too limited for that).
Similar experience here: the paid options are way too expensive for private use, when none of the new features has any value to you.
Seems to me that the correct strategy for Dropbox would have been to be super focused on the core product and on not hiring in too many people/taking in too much capital. That would of course have introduced a market cap, but if 1% of everyone had ended up on a reasonably priced personal plan it would have been a roomy cap.
As it was, Dropbox has grown into yet-another ms-office-in-the-sky and there is no way they will make it against their competitors who can burn the cash, and who are slowly catching up on sync technology.
This is really a shame too: Dropbox is just the gold standard for sync. Before Dropbox I was using unison[0] and tried every other sync product, but nothing came close. TBH I am still using Dropbox every day, getting around the device limit by sharing stuff with multiple free accounts...
Does anyone understand how OneDrive and Dropbox can be so cheap compared to S3?
- 2 TB on Dropbox is £7.99 / month
- 1 TB OneDrive is £59.99 / year
- 1 TB on S3 is $23.99 / month
How can Dropbox and OneDrive be cheaper than S3 at all, let alone after providing value add on top? Is it something to do with lower reliability and availability guarantees? Is it possible to buy direct access to their underlying storage?
Most users aren’t storing anywhere close to 1TB. For every user using 1TB there are probably a hundred using 1GB or less. Case in point: I subscribe to Office 365 reluctantly but don’t use OneDrive.
Those are retail rates, big users get much better pricing. Dropbox used S3 for years until finally moving to their own datacenter to be more efficient.
And like others have said, users are charged for storage that many don't use so there's a lot of revenue padding. Same model used by the other clouds for consumer storage like Google Drive.
Yeah I found it genius to have so much space anywhere I was for basically free when I was a poor student.
But then I got richer and with a 40TB NAS, a few $ per year hostname, an ip refresh script for the registrar and a vpn server included in the nas, well I have a monster dropbox equivalent and now that I have 5G, I dont even understand anymore why people dont just do that. You lose the ability to access docs offline but then you have massive space online without having to share it with american people (Im in China). In terms of reliability, modern NASes are really good and I only ever lost stuff when I got caught in trying btrfs lol
And with the recent temptation to scan cloud stuff for dangerous data, I feel more at ease with the NAS solution.
Dropbox user for personal stuff for many years, I'm definitely not happy about them adding weird add-ons like Paper or even worse, Passwords. Just focus on file sync/storage/sharing.
And I absolutely don't understand the family plan, like you have the same storage (2TB) than a Premium account, but you have to share it between multiple people AND pay more. What ?
Also, I use OneDrive at work and even if I like its integration directly within Office (especially Excel), I have issues daily with the sync. Lots of conflicts, lots of "can't sync"... And even if I keep removing it, I keep getting two or three shortcuts on the left sidebar in Explorer and it annoys me quite a lot.
So for now I'm staying with Dropbox but I will have no issue switching ship if I see something better elsewhere or, worse, if they make bad choices.
I did exactly that. I work at Microsoft now, but two years before I joined I went through the same process but kept Dropbox for many years solely for Linux support. Then they botched that, so I moved my Linux/Mac working trees into SyncThing (since I only need local sync anyway).
I used to be a big fan of Dropbox, but my problem is that they don't have a lower paid tier like Google, Microsoft and Apple have for $2-$3. I need a little more than the free plan offers, but I don't need terabytes of space.
Are you on windows? Because I tried OneDrive and found it quite slow and a bit flakey when I tried it a few years ago on my Mac: it would get confused about sync state and just stop syncing (much better than losing data!) until I exited and restarted the app.
Also it would silently refuse to sync some files which eventually I realised were not valid windows filenames though they were perfectly fine under Unix.
Has it gotten better? It’s free so I’d be willing to use it if I could trust it.
Dropbox at least has a Linux client and unlike OneDrive didn't delete all data because some plan expired. The problem is Dropbox is too expensive by comparison.
Yeah, me too (early adopter, paid version). My breaking point was the Windows client kept dying, SILENTLY. When I used it for keeping data in sync with my wife on her Windows machine, this was a total deal breaker.
I left Dropbox when they stopped supporting Linux client. I didn't want to go to either Google or Microsoft, so I went with Mega.nz and I am very happy with them. I pay around $30/year for 400 GB storage. (most likely a grandfathered plan, not sure of current pricing).
For what it’s worth (not trying to convince you to switch back, just want to provide my perspective), I still use Dropbox on Linux (Pop!_OS 20.04) via their official installer and it works completely fine:
It should also perhaps be noted that you can't sync to a Dropbox folder on an NTFS drive in Linux with the official client. You can however do this with Maestral.
At some point they build in a filesystem check and stopped running on anything but ext4 (or btrfs?). IIRC they were constantly giving some notification as well.
It didn't really make sense either and I know several people moved away from Dropbox because they were using xfs. I'm using pCloud with their lifetime 1TB plan.
OneDrive (I use it at work): if one file fails, all files stop syncing. It sometimes tries to sync some files from teams and just never finishes. It also has very strange file name restrictions. if the file name is bad (eg whitespace at the end) it will just stop syncing anything. Still better than Google Drive as it is a standard folder. if it crashes your data is HERE.
google drive (I used that at work): on MacOS is it is utter crap as it is not a folder but a mounted thing. So it is not "there" when you login. So every application that tries to open a file on google drive just fails. Because it is not an apple FS a lot of apple apps will complain. MySQL Workbench will often fail to save and often destroy files. If not running it is not mounted and none of your files are here. you also can't copy out google files (writer, spreadsheet, etc). For whatever reason.
iCloud: some strange folder nested hundred levels deep. I only use it because of some ios stuff.
So yeah, Dropbox might be pricey but through all the years it really worked very well for me. (And I really don't care about any of the other services they have)
I use all of them (Google, OneDrive, Dropbox) due to various needs, but Dropbox is my primary account too.
I've found that inSync is a wonderful client for GoogleDrive and OneDrive for all major platforms. It has some nice features like out of tree syncing (sync a cloud folder to anywhere on the filesystem and keep it synced), and .gitignore like ignore syntax.
I'd recommend it heavily. It's a one-time-payment application with no limitations.
I was an early user of insync (Linux and google seive) and had issues with it when they added one drive support. I tried it out when I was getting all of my stuff off of google a while back. I pay for office and one drive so if I could consolidate it would be nice.
I'm not that old, but I had no problems whatsoever with InSync on either OneDrive or Google Drive (on Linux). Recently they have changed their licensing model to pay once for unlimited accounts and their development is accelerated.
>google drive (I used that at work): on MacOS is it is utter crap as it is not a folder but a mounted thing.
That's Google File Stream. There is also a client called Backup and Sync that works like Dropbox, I'm using it now. These are apparently being merged into a single client to be called Google Drive Desktop.
It felt like when they went from the original Google Drive desktop client to Google File Stream + Backup and Sync, they really wanted to push people to File Stream so they could eventually discontinue backup and sync with extra lock in for users. But that didn't turn out the way they wanted, with most users opting for the relatively unbranded Backup and Sync, so we're moving back to the single program.
I wonder if this is a retreat from that strategy, or if the single program will be used as a way to nudge Backup and Sync users to adopt the File Stream flow.
> Maestral uses the public Dropbox API which, unlike the official client, does not support transferring only those parts of a file which changed ("binary diff"). Maestral may therefore use more bandwidth that the official client.
Works for my workflow. I work on reasonably small files (my whole cloud storage is about 20 gb) and I like to have the storage available in my file manager at all times. Wouldn't want to run proprietary software or waste memory on it.
The biggest problem I have with these 3rd party clients is sometimes things just don't work right. Like for example gimp just fails to open files in the synced folder (google drive not the OP project) until I copy them out and open them. Not sure what the issue is though.
It's a good tradeoff since it lets me escape the official Dropbox client trying to upload my drives, photos, etc. to the cloud, and spam me with upsell offers on a daily basis (if you're operating with a nearly full Dropbox in steady-state).
I have 32GB of RAM and I would still do that trade off. The 60MB is there all day long doing nothing for me. The internet connection is actually being used for something useful which is synchronizing my files (the actual purpose of the software). I feel like I'm wasting more resources with the first option.
Also it's not even that bandwidth expensive with most users' workflow. Maybe this should be a concern for video editors. Majority of people who are just editing word documents (or code, for what I believe is most HN's audience), wouldn't notice the difference.
How is this any different than storing data in S3? Companies have petabytes in the cloud now. If their networking supports their usage then Dropbox is a good solution given all the features it provides.
The "imagine $X" construct has colloquially grown to mean "$X is irrational", which is strange to me here - the lack of binary diffing means if you change a single bit of your video editing project, the whole thing gets synced to the cloud. Dropbox is a common solution for small business VCS that's not VCS, I've seen it used for born exactly that way a half dozen times the past decade.
> the lack of binary diffing means if you change a single bit of your video editing project, the whole thing gets synced to the cloud
I know someone using Dropbox for video editing, they've been using the Synology Dropbox client which also uses the API. It hasn't been a problem.
The large video files (tens or hundreds of GB) are ingested once and never edited, the only edits to files are the small project files (megabytes), and some graphics files (hundreds of megabytes). Re-exports of rendered video causes the whole file to change anyway due to the nature of video compression so binary diff doesn't help there anyway.
I just think that Dropbox is an inappropriate file storage mechanism (especially for heavy artifacts being generated locally) for someone moving that much stuff in and out of a long term storage system, especially at those levels. I'm not someone that generates 500GB of CAD artifacts a day, or anything even remotely similar, but I ingest about 15GB of global market data and news a day and I laughed a little bit reading your response (I understand how you were responding to GP, and your response makes sense) because its just nonsensical to use consumer focused products for anything serious.
Just because I slap on a "business tier" sticker on a water bottle doesn't mean the water bottle is better equipped at solving enterprise needs.
I really, really want to like Dropbox – but man it feels like they're trying as hard as possible to drive me away with the Mac client.
I honestly just want an app that sits there any syncs a folder of files to cloud storage for me. Add some settings and status information, keep the nice features like partial/"smart" sync—along with some shell integration so I can share stuff easily—and it would be absolutely great. I just want to give them some money in exchange for providing some useful services.
But it takes genuine effort to make a UI this unappealing. Why is it using it's own non-system font?? Why is the text blurry – in some places, and not in others? Why are all the checkbox icons broken? Why does it include a terrible file manager application??
Bah, I know I'm just yelling at clouds and the reasons are more complex. But I am definitely finding more and more apps that I've used for ages are just getting _actively worse_ for my use-cases and it's so frustrating.
Dropbox was an exceptional product with perfect OS integration
and interesting features like the “public folder” with an added web server, a versioning system, etc.
My use case was not storing big backup files in the cloud but synchronise files between several machines: keeping compatibility with older systems/devices and smaller but cheaper DropBox (100GB?) sizes would have kept me as client.
At every update the OS plugin has become more bloated and incomprehensible…
Using the public folder to render HTML content :: As of October 3, 2016 Dropbox Basic (free) users can no longer use public links to render HTML content in a web browser. If you're a Basic user, and you created a website that directly displays HTML content from your Dropbox account, it will no longer render in the browser.
Effective September 1, 2017, Dropbox Plus and Business users can no longer render HTML content, and the Public folder and its sharing functionality have been disabled.
I’ve used Maestral a few times and find it works best with narrower folder limits—I ultimately went with the official Dropbox client for my M1 but I use it on an x86 machine in which I only need a handful of folders.
Sam is doing an awesome job. On an M1 mac, the official dropbox client is a total no-go from a resource usage point of view. Maestral is a lifesaver for me/my memory usage.
I would love to have something like this for OneDrive!! Open Source OneDrive support is so poor right now. There's https://github.com/abraunegg/onedrive which is OK (I don't mind it being console-only) but it lacks virtual files and syncing my entire box to every system is just not an option.
Even if MS would build a client it would probably be Linux only which still won't help me for FreeBSD.
I am extremely happy that my institution has it's own cloud storage and uses ownCloud. I have never had to deal with Dropbox, OneDrive or gDrive bullshit.
I'm fairly happy of the OwnCloud/NextCloud alternative, but they're not very well-engineered products (although they got better over the last years). Definitely much better than Dropbox on Linux though, which is clearly a third-class citizen for the Dropbox company.
The NC client (and I assume also OC) can still generate conflicts even on a single machine, when the network/server connection is not stable. I also remember the Nginx default settings for OwnCloud being suboptimal.
Long ago, the NC/OC client was slow to sync, but now it's snappy.
Nextcloud works decent for normal file stuff but doesn't really have a solution for photos. You can turn on the auto photo sync for a folder but after a few thousand files it gets unusably slow.
This looks to be a nice alternative to the official app, which I mostly dislike due to its non-standard gigantic popup that appears when I click on it in the system tray. I only use Dropbox to store my 1password vault so I don't really care about any bandwidth concerns.
Would be cool to get around a limitation of Dropbox's native client: filenames with emojis (and other utf8 I assume) won't upload. If their filesystem doesn't like utf8, maybe the client could convert the offending filenames to base64 or punycode, and convert filenames back from the cloud... maybe I can find a place in the code to try this out, thanks for open sourcing. I notice you're using type hints in python and I've been wanting to learn more about that, would love to hear what toolchain is hip these days.
screenshots of a browser where your screenshots are automatically named by the application window you're taking a screenshot of. if that tab is an article or forum post or anything that has an emoji in its title, you're getting emojis in the filename. you only find out when you go to find the screenshot later and it's missing. fun stuff
I'm usually not a "you have to go the hard way before going the easy way"-guy, and I started the easy way actually, but using CLI every definitely changes the way you name your files.
And I can't see (and don't want to) how you would manage files through CLI that contains emojis in their name...
I use YouTube-dl on Reddit, so the headline becomes the file name. Lots of emojis in Reddit titles. On the “nature is fucking lit” subreddit, it seems to be a rule to start your title with a fire emoji.
Dropbox remains for me the best syncing software especially with Delta sync. No issues like file name restrictions that I have encountered in OneDrive. I like Google Photos and it remains my favorite photo storage solution. I find Dropbox more user friendly with features like folder rewind. For sure, I would like cheaper pricing plan with 200GB Storage.
If you're looking for an open-source self-hosted alternative to Dropbox, I've found Seafile to be flawless. Seadrive is also nice if you want to access your data as if it were a network drive.
* Not affiliated with seafile, just really like their software.
I use syncthing. Open source peer to peer folder sync. There is no cloud copy, but for me this is a feature, and the rare times I want to share a file with someone else I manually upload it to cloud storage (onedrive or gdrive).
I'm actually surprised to see this comment so far down on HN.
I switched after Dropbox started imposing a device limit. There was a but of a learning curve to get it all set up and the quality of the client software can be hit-or-miss. That said, the core functionality (syncing files between devices) has been rock solid.
Rust got M1 support in November, 2020. There are many other Rust apps that work on M1. This isn't a viable excuse for a publicly traded behemoth that keeps taking on new verticals while ignoring the one feature users care about.
Now all we need is the ability to set a client-side encryption key file that applies transparently before upload and on download. This would then be emailed to yourself as a backup. Then you can be secure in your effects.
I joined Dropbox in around 2010 and used it religiously through University to ensure all my work was being backed up as I worked on assignments. I used it for group projects and it was fantastic, at the time it was the most reliable cloud storage and I tried Microsoft Live Mesh, Live drive etc and found they were unreliable in syncing changes to edited files. Dropbox was flawless.
I then shifted into using it to also back up my photos from my mobile and camera, however my photo storage started to grow and this year I switched to Google Drive & Photos for much much less than Dropbox was offering per month. I think 100GB of Google Drive & Photos is $25.99 per year opposed to $184 per year for 1TB with DropBox. I don't need 1TB but 100GB is perfect compared to 10GB with Dropbox (that I had).
It's a setting, so you can pick. It used to be from back when Google photos offered unlimited storage for compressed photos (that they don't offer anymore Iirc).
Why would it matter to them? They are already more expensive than other providers. Rclone connects to multiple cloud hosting solutions already too. If they revoked API access I'm pretty sure the backlash would be the final straw.
Companies bundle everything into their flagship product to force everyone to use it. Direct API access means Dropbox can’t advertise either. Ask Twitter what they think about that.
It's an online collaborative simple document editor/space where you can embed live web stuff into these virtual "pages" and hyperlink between them. It came out of Dropbox' acquisition of Hackpad (which itself was based on open-source Etherpad). Funnily enough, Google bought Etherpad and then I suspect that's what they used to create the revolutionary Google Wave in 2009, which of course they killed off years later (just to recently launch Smart Canvas or whatever it's called which is reminiscent of Wave). It's a cool product though, and I still (disclaimer: an ex-Dropboxer) use Dropbox Paper for lots of stuff (especially long form writing and research).
To me it seems to want to be Google Wave. A union of documents and chat channels so your workspace can be all-inclusive, but I think it has a bit of a fax machine problem in that I don't know anyone else to use it with.
Edit: the toolbar on a new "Paper" doc allow me to insert an image, media, dropbox file, table, timeline, to do list, and code blocks. I can link a calendar event to a doc, Oh, I can hit a button to switch to "Presentation Mode"... and I can highlight text to comment on it. So on second thought it seems very similar to google docs.
Maestral provides a universal binary on macOS, so it runs natively on arm64. The official Dropbox client is x64-only, so it needs to run in an emulation layer (Rosetta) on a M1. For something low-level as a file syncing service, that's very unfortunate. There are loads of request on the Dropbox forum to support arm64, but no sight of it being added anytime soon.
That either reads “we don’t have the resources to support our second largest OS platform” or there are too little users still using the native desktop client.
Mind you, this is a company that went out of their way to port a Linux client in 2011.
I bet M1 users aren't nowhere near "the second largest OS platform". Unless you're bundling x86 macOS users together. Just pointing out that it's not as critical (yet) as it might appear.
1. For a Linux user, you can already build such a system yourself quite trivially by getting an FTP account, mounting it locally with curlftpfs, and then using SVN or CVS on the mounted filesystem. From Windows or Mac, this FTP account could be accessed through built-in software.
2. It doesn't actually replace a USB drive. Most people I know e-mail files to themselves or host them somewhere online to be able to perform presentations, but they still carry a USB drive in case there are connectivity problems. This does not solve the connectivity issue.
3. It does not seem very "viral" or income-generating. I know this is premature at this point, but without charging users for the service, is it reasonable to expect to make money off of this?