But they could have kept going in that direction and competed with all of the photosharing sites, soundcloud, heck even youtube if they had wanted. Say I like to vlog, what would be easier? After filming raw footage, edit it, make my final cut, upload to youtube and wait for transcoding and availability? Or just put my final cut into a "droptube" folder and it automagically appears at www.droptube.com (not a real thing, but could be in some alternate dimension)
Or what if I want to host a simple site? Fiddle with a hosting provider, screw around trying to figure out the 37 different metrics I'll be charged for, or just put some html, css and js file into a dropbox "webhost" folder?
I dunno, I think they're closing off lots of opportunity and have had trouble executing on this kind of cloud application for the masses, or they're really not going after it.
Photo-gallery, as you've noted opens them to competing with other such providers... who all seem to eventually race towards throwing ads on everything to try and make some profit.
Freely accessible areas also equate to more consumers (not users), and I don't know if DB's business model charges any kind of fee for access to that data.
This mostly sounds like DB is out of areas they want to / feel they can succeed in tapping for new customers and thus they attempt to cut back on costs with the hope of inertia retaining the existing users.
I'm okay with how Dropbox as-is as a Pro user, and have no problem giving them $100/year in perpetuity.
A product must not constantly evolve/improve for it to succeed (I'm looking at you Github with your damn dark bar at the top nav now!). "Good enough" can carry the day. Sync always works. My files are always there. That's what I'm paying for.
----
I wonder what features Dropbox can offer that won't inevitably be surpassed by Google Drive, iCloud Drive, and OneDrive.
To me, their main strength seems to be that they have the best cross-platform UI/UX right now, but even that may not be the case for long.
Maybe they could evolve/branch into a general-purpose file hosting service, where people can use it to publicly share images (like imgur) and music (like Soundcloud) with the appropriate UI for each case (or spinoff site, e.g. Imagebox and Musicbox) except people would just need one account to comment/vote on everything. Who knows, maybe they can even become an alternative to YouTube..
Let independent developers publish their games and apps from there, bypassing Steam and the other app stores, optionally charging a fee per user, with Dropbox taking a cut.
Maybe even offer a chatroom/messaging system, to compete with Slack/Skype etc.
Big deal? Well, they actually changed the name of the folder. And now I can't modify it. So yeah, big deal. I have Logic Pro templates that look there. They all broke. It wasn't too bad for me, but imagine if you had scripts or tools or whatever pointing to a file on your FS that happened to be in one of the affected folders. You woke up one morning and they were all broken.
You can't just rename people's files. That's not part of the social contract I have with you, Dropbox.
It's just not right. It's my file system. Get your hands off it.
To me, this should be done very very visibly and with tons of warnings. I used it to communicate screenshots with details, etc. Now all links are broken and I'm SOL with no viable solution to changing those links from documents, bugs, etc., etc.
Very very very bad!
I think this change primarily serves to funnel downstream content viewers to the shared file "landing page". That landing page is filled with valuable screen real-estate that Dropbox can use to promote itself.
That page is a usability nightmare, too. Photos can't be zoomed to full size on certain screen configurations, videos are served transcoded, and many other file types that the browser can render natively are flagged as "undisplayable". File content will often become unavailable or hidden behind a full-splash "create a Dropbox account!" affordance that pays no heed to whether you're logged in, a customer, or just a casual observer.
Would make sense to make for a free product but if people are paying and this is still broken, seems a bit stupid.
Actually... now that I think about it; what annoys me most is the fact that it pops up a login box. If it was just on the side not covering the content I probably wouldn't dislike it so much.
Having said that, I haven't had that public folder in many many many many many years. So I'm surprised about this announce.
If anyone knows a quick way to let anyone do what I described above, please do tell.
Given the initial release was in June 2007, does anyone know why this only applies to accounts created after October 4, 2012?
"We’re reaching out to let you know that if you haven’t updated your Dropbox password since mid-2012, you’ll be prompted to update it the next time you sign in. This is purely a preventative measure, and we’re sorry for the inconvenience."
https://web.archive.org/web/20091228083110/http://www.dropbo...
And the policies from end of 2012:
https://web.archive.org/web/20121216094126/https://www.dropb...
That said, given the Terms of Use say they were last modified on March 26, 2012 — it appears possible that is not the reason.
I'm guessing they mention those accounts in the announcement to make it clear that the changes don't apply to those accounts, since pre-10/4/12 accounts never had a Public folder at all.
(I know - I'm clearly not "their most valuable customer segment" - if I was them I'd probably be breaking my irrelevant-to-them shit too...)
No, it probably has to do with making downloaders go to Dropbox and tempt them to subscribe.
My concerns have less to do with individual files being manually added to a Google Drive or iCloud folder and more to do with how well it handles starting entire new project folders w/ hundreds (or thousands) of files that are constantly being updated.
Used to be that way for me too until all the nasty tricks they employed in the OS X app installation process to elevate their privileges came to light. Though the syncing still works as reliably I no longer trust them with the content or to behave responsibly.
I haven't had any issue syncing with OneDrive or Google Drive for larger projects. I don't doubt you might've run into that issue in the past but I'd recommend giving it a go if that's what's holding you back. If anything knowing that you can reliably switch storage providers in the future should you need to is a good card to hold.
Google and to a slightly lesser degree Microsoft have horrible histories of simply turning off successful services. Or "improving" them by replacing with something objectively worse.
I have been told many times (here, as well as elsewhere) how I don't "understand" cloud and related drivel. I understand cloud very well. That's why I don't depend on it.
I can verify it still works for Pro/Plus accounts with existing Public folders.
> Effective September 1, 2017, Dropbox Pro, Plus, and Business users will no longer be able to render HTML content, and the Public folder and its sharing functionality will be disabled.
The now changed title completely misses the point of this submission, and is not more correct or less editorialized than the original one. I would prefer if it were restored, the "today" could get removed to cover that it will happen later for Pro Accounts. If memory serves me right it would be something like "Dropbox disables Public folder". That is what happens.
Note: I have flagged the parent comment so that it shows up for the moderators (and also upvoted it to counteract the impact of flagging). So, nobody else needs to flag it - if too many people do so it might go [dead].
[0] http://web.archive.org/web/20091114094103/http://www.dropbox...
Anyone recommend a better alternative?
Me, I'ma gonna switch to Photoshop - it doesn't have this feature either, but screw those Dropbox clowns, amirite?
If I missed the instructions in the announcement, I apologise.
Tor is always good if you need a quick easy way to publish something without a public IP address
But that's not really the same problem.
However, one can still blame Dropbox for the change itself. I used this on several occasions, including hosting archives for academic publications. No way in hell I can change those links. Maybe that wasn't a wise choice, but at that time it looked like a good way: The link did not give a clue about my identity, making peer review easier, and DB being a well-funded and known internet company those links were surely meant to work forever, cool URLs don't change is something they had to know. Boy was I wrong.
I also fell into the trap (back when I had an active Dropbox account) of using the Public folder and sharing links from there. At some point along the way, Dropbox started allowing one to share single files from any private folder without exposing the rest of the folder to the audience, and I started using that method instead. Still, even if I had stayed with Dropbox I probably would have some orphaned /Public links out there somewhere, thanks to this change.
I think we both could have avoided that trap by setting up a small storage VPS with a provider like Digital Ocean or Vultr and installing a document management system. It would still be fairly anonymous; a truly determined detective could find the owner but it would likely require a subpoena, which Dropbox would have been vulnerable to as well.
I have an email about the new ToS 12/28, and a research survey request on 12/11, plus the regular login emails I receive, but absolutely nothing about this over the last few months.
I also just checked, and my public folder has been downgraded to a regular one, so I am part of the post-2012 signups.
I am a Dropbox Plus user. I never received any emails. I just checked and the email address that dropbox has is correct. This change breaks the links to PDFs of some papers and posters that I presented at scientific meetings a few years ago. I didn't expect the links to last forever, but it's still a shame.
They probably should have had some warning on the app itself when putting or sharing files from that folder.
It's a free service, so my bad for using it without a good backup, but I had used programs for a long long time that produce screenshots with one keystroke and copy the URL to the clipboard, saving time.
I figured this was relatively low overhead for them and a popular feature, so they would keep it. Lesson learned ..
Visit github.com
Create an account or login
Click the green "New repository" button
Give your website a name like "hello"
Check the box to Initialize this repository with a README
Click the Create repository button
Click the Create new file button
Name the file index.html
Enter <p>Hello World</p> in the body of the file
Click the Commit new file button
Click the Settings gear icon
Scroll down to GitHub Pages
Select master branch under Source
Click the Save button
There's now a link to username.github.io/hello under the GitHub Pages heading. You can now edit the index.html file or add css and js resources in the same way you just added the index file. Uploading files, such as images, is also supported. All without using Git.
Oh wait, you're saying that you can do everything without using Git? That sounds good then.
You have a bit more of a guarantee there. Bonus points if you fill in the copyright field correctly.
PDFs, audio files, video files etc will all be post-processed and rendered like you would expect them to be.
AFAIK, neither Google Drive, OneDrive, or iCloud will work on Linux.
Third party though? onedrive: https://skilion.github.io/onedrive/
google drive (assuming you're using gnome): https://www.howtogeek.com/196635/an-official-google-drive-fo...
A better comparison here would be neocities
That can break though. And admittedly, I didn't want to have costs for this, especially not re-occuring, being a student at the time. I could have asked my university/IT to take care of this, but that would have meant bureaucracy and a long waiting time, time I did not have.
I wasn't even an active DB user at that time anymore, having moved away when Condoleezza Rice joined. But the way they are handling this I only get more convinced that was the right choice. It is one thing removing functionality, it is another breaking links. At least they should have a way to manually share files, and let them have the exact same link they had before. But I guess that is only of interest for people with an interest in technology, a demographic DB is not interested in anymore.
You can also drag and drop files from your desktop to your repo.
Disclaimer: I've been fed delicious lamb chops and duck at the DB office, so my view might be tainted.
Edit: I also received another email about it on March 1st
Looking over the past 6 months, I don't have anything else but "Hey, you added a new device to Dropbox!"
https://www.dropbox.com/s/2s31p57eod49dva/1371724997329.png?...
and navigating to this
https://dl.dropbox.com/s/2s31p57eod49dva/1371724997329.png?d...
results in a redirect to this
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/s/2s31p57eod49dva/13717249...
which can be hotlinked. What this means in a specific sense, I haven't yet learned. I'm particularly interested to know the behavior of any of these links if the file is moved/renamed. I have not tested it, but my intuition is the dropbox.com link would survive a move and the dropboxusercontent.com link would not.
Part of my attention since they announced this change late last year has been taken up asking myself "which of those shared photos do I care enough about to go back to the relevant forum/website and update the link - if that's even possible?" And the realisation slowly grew - I probably don't _really_ care enough about broken links to images - especially on sites I not longer actively use - which raises the obvious question, why am I paying Dropbox at all then?
Sure - their product might need to "evolve" but if I'm paying for a pterodactyl and they've pivoted to small warm blooded mammals, they may well out compete all their dinosaur competitors, but I'm one of the customers who'll say "Sorry, I didn't ask for a mammal, where's my pterodactyl that I've been paying you for?"
Unfortunately, it goes against the startup ethos. That's why I avoid using startup products whenever I can. With regular companies, the problem is less pronounced, though it exists nonetheless.
It's sad people have to keep fucking up things they first made work, only because they're looking for more profit.
That said, my point was more general than just this Dropbox issue.
I ran both in parallel for nearly a year. I've cancelled Dropbox.
If it matters at all to you, you can host a huge amount for static website content for single digit dollars per year on S3.
If it's not worth that much to you, who in their right mind will build a service based on providing that to you at your price point? And if they _have_ a service where the marginal cost of you not-caring-enough-to-pay makes little difference, you should - as this Dropbox change demonstrates - fully expect that "feature" to go away when the costs or support (or legal problems) get noticed.
Unfortunately, I don't think that "if it matters so much to you, you can pay $X" is a useful position. More helpful would be "beware free services that cause vendor lock-in and may stop being free at any time".
Do you use a free Gmail account? If so, how important is it for you?
Because I'm trying to teach someone how to make a simple webpage and publish it on the internet. If in this workflow you have to get your credit card out you're doing it wrong.
I'm with you on the outrage, just perhaps a bit more pragmatic about the inevitability. (And I'm a paying customer too. Or at least will be until my current billing cycle ends...)
