This is a major downgrade in the Dropbox user experience. It makes it more confusing to know what is shared WITH THE ENTIRE WORLD and what is not, which is a tremendously important thing to know. Simultaneously, it makes it more difficult to share files. Dropbox "gains" by adding their splash screen into the file download process, but every user of the product loses. This is a decision made by the marketing department.
I do like the Public folder, but you can still easily get a list of exactly what's shared; the "Links" sidebar (https://www.dropbox.com/links) lists all links you've created, and lets you deactivate any that you don't want to be available anymore.
This is a move absolutely in the wrong direction. I'm sure the idea is to push more eyeballs across the DB logo and grow the userbase. But to those users, DB will look like yet another fileshare a la megaupload/filefront/whatever and not something particularly special.
Here's some better ideas:
- harden up the way users want to use the public folder and make it more like a CDN
- Add another price tier if they must to ensure it works!
- Let users host web sites out of their public folder! Hand craft HTML still has a place among basic users who just want to put up a web page about their dog!
- put media specific folders in the public folder (maybe at different price tiers) and turn it into a flickr/soundcloud/youtube competitor!
"Let users host web sites out of their public folder! Hand craft HTML still has a place among basic users who just want to put up a web page about their dog!"
I think this is one of the reasons they are phasing out the public folder, as people are able to do exactly that[1]. I remember it was mentioned on Lifehacker a while back[2], so maybe its becoming an issue. With the share functionality, you just get the code[3], making it impossible to use dropbox in this way.
A staffer (?) mentions further down that almost no one was using their Public folder, so I really doubt that the average Dropbox user wants any of the things you listed.
Dropbox is a file storage and sharing service, not a CDN or web host. Just because it could be hacked to make it a CDN or web host doesn't mean those things are highly desirable to customers or good for their actual business.
"Let users host web sites out of their public folder! Hand craft HTML still has a place among basic users who just want to put up a web page about their dog!"
I'm not sure about that. Isn't that what all of the free blogging services and/or facebook are for?
Thanks for the tip, but it comes with zero guarantee the link will work that way next week.
And with changes like the one being discussed here I'm guessing a referrer / login check will be in place at some point in the future (basically downgrading DropBox public sharing to the equivalent of Google Sites).
Edit: It's also worth noting that this parameter forces a download rather than opening things in the browser when possible.
Doesn't work as intended with images -- you get a download instead of showing the image inside the browser. A step backward compared to the old Public folder.
Well, you can go to that link page, copy the "Download" URL and remove the "?dl=1" suffix. You should have a dl.dropbox.com URL now, which will show the file in the browser, and not force the browser to download the file.
That being said: it's an undocumented feature, thus can't be taken as granted (and so might be removed at any point in time without warning), and the path is still cryptic.
Dropbox support offered up the ?dl=1 querystring as the solution to permanent, public URLs when I emailed them, but I have the same issue with the fact that the files are forced to download. If they're going to stick with Dropbox branded preview for public URLs, I'd like to at least see a similar ?view=1 querystring to keep images/pdfs/etc.. displaying directly in the browser.
They are NOT removing the ability to link to files in your Dropbox. Just the Public folder itself, which is no longer needed since any file can now be shared with a public link.
EDIT: And for those of you concerned by any impact on using Dropbox as a CDN, there shouldn't be any issues. The links that Dropbox generates from your files have a bit of chrome (a preview of the contents of the file and a couple of buttons), but you can still get a direct link from the "Download" button.
What I find disappointing is their focus on photo uploads. I think users really just want to pick a best of breed provider for major features like this in their lives, and Facebook has photos sharing locked up.
Dropbox has brought simple file synchronization between machines that are not necessarily on the same network, to the masses, but they need to do it in away that doesn't make you want to drop Dropbox when it goes wrong. I had a machine with Dropbox installed turned off for a year, and when I turned it on, it's clock was wrong, so when I updated the clock, Dropbox deleted all files in my Dropbox that were newer than the last time I had that machine running. What did it delete? Hard to tell. And Dropbox doesn't support restoration for folders, or points in time, just single files.
I thought the recent update for their iPhone app, when they enabled auto-upload of photos, was the greatest thing ever. I don't use the iCloud or whatever it's called, but I do use Dropbox all the time.
Auto-upload solves all sorts of issues I had, or things nagging me in the back of my mind, from realistic ones like transferring photos to computers, all the way to paranoid fantasies like "I wish I could snap a picture of this police officer and then laugh in his face - go ahead, beat me up and take the phone from me, it's too late now". :)
The Public/ folder is probably the most useful feature of Dropbox. It is totally user friendly and integrated into the desktop. You just have to drop a file in the folder and get the public url from the drop-down menu. It couldn't get much easier than that. And now it will be phased out. Really sad news. I guess it's about time to try Google Drive.
I like the change, and also consider the Public folder to be redundant. I hated having to move files to the Public folder every time I wanted to send a link to someone. I am satisfied with https://www.dropbox.com/links as a way to see which links are shared with the world.
Some cynics say it's a marketing tactic, but I actually like the preview as well. I don't have any esoteric use cases like using Dropbox to host web pages. I use Dropbox to sync files across machines and to occasionally share large files with my colleagues. Consequently, I find this change to make things more usable, not less.
Just another data point, since the comments here seem to be predominantly negative. Part of what attracted with to Dropbox in the first place is its simplicity. If anything, I'm curious about their business model since I've earned so much space through their competitions and such that I no longer need a paid account.
Ok so say you're bashing out a HTML site with some other frontend people, so you throw it up on your Public folder, and they can access it at /u/8798798/whatever/index.html, and their browsers can access associated content (html, css).
This is used a LOT in the web design industry, and taking this out is going to piss a lot of people off.
Just about the only thing I use Dropbox for is the public folder. I've gotten many of my friends and collaborators to sign up for the service, based on the recommendation of this very feature. It's been a real boon for rapidly iterating front end mock ups.
Dropping support for what Dropbox evidently regards as "edge use cases" is not how you "build the next Apple or Google". The Public folder may not be used by the majority, but it is the domain of the geekiest, most hacker-spirited segment of users. Why trample that most creative segment?
The removal of my team's files from Dropbox and searching for a better sharing method begins now.
I think you are overreacting. Are you serious about using the public folder for "rapidly iterating front end mock ups"? Why would you want to put sensitive and confidential data for everyone in the world to see?
Wow, how are people using their "Public" folders? I'm honestly surprised at all this outrage.
I was unaware you could share any folder/file before so I just played around with it. From your file manager, right click any dropbox file or folder and select 'Get Link'. The browser will open and send you to a page displaying all those files and folders. You can copy/paste that link to anyone.
Is the only difference that in the case of linking to a single file, rather than a full directory, the link clicker now sees a preview of the file (with a big Download button) instead of downloading it directly.
Isn't that actually an improvement, so the linker isn't just blindly trusting and downloading a file from some random link? That seems ripe for abuse, if users got used to that mindset.
Here's a question (that probably only Dropbox themselves can answer, until this change comes down the pipe)--the email said this:
> After July 31, we will no longer create Public folders in any new Dropbox accounts.
Now, I've deleted my Public folder before, and it seems that recreating a folder named Public in the Dropbox root and restarting the sync daemon was all that was needed to convert it back into "the" Public folder.
So, for those new users, will this change mean that "the folder named Public will no longer have special-cased semantics, unless a flag is set on your account saying you're grandfathered into the old behavior", or does this change mean "we'll leave in the code that makes the Public folder work the way it does--but just not generate one for new users when setting up their dropbox, so they must explicitly create it themselves?" It seems to me that the latter is the most simple/elegant option, technically, and the one I'd go for if I was a Dropbox engineer and hadn't specifically been told to make it impossible for people to use Public folders from now on.
From what's been said in the forums and implied in that email they sent to API users, they're leaving the functionality in and just no longer creating the folder on install.
My question is: How long is that functionality going to stick around for legacy users after it's been hidden by default?
The sharing functionality is not the same at all since it gives every file an obfuscated name, making it impossible to link directly in an effective fashion.
This feature is the only thing that has kept me from switching to a competing provider (Sugarsync, GDrive).
From a comment further down, it sounds like it's due to considering it now redundant, and not wanting to support two ways of sharing files. The original way to share Dropbox files over the web was to drop them in your Public folder, but now you can right-click on any file, in any folder, and generate a shareable link to it. So they're going with that as the new sharing mechanism, and phasing out the "drop it in your public folder" approach.
Terrible idea. Having the public directory there to just drop files into and knowing that it is all "Public" is one of the features that differentiated Dropbox from its many competitors.
My Honor's thesis has been in my Public folder for several years now and is even referenced in a paper. While I realize this probably isn't the most ideal location, it's served me well. If I understand this correctly I'm grandfathered in and won't lose this functionality, correct?
I also use the public folder daily for sharing screenshots and other files. It really has solved the filesharing problem for me and I'm disappointed they are adding to the complexity to such an easy and great filesharing method.
EDIT: Also the only reason I'm still with dropbox is the public folder, I moved all my other data to Google Drive when it was released...
Does anyone else think this can be easily fixed with a Powershell (or batch) script? Preconfigure it with your public folder url "id" and make it so it copies the generic url to the clipboard (complete with filename) and just appends a "?dl=1" at the end. Make a shortcut to the script and send it to the context menu.
Don't say Dropbox creates a unique token for every link made, which means in that case, we'd have to create a link through Dropbox first. Anyone see any huge flaws in this? (first post)
It seems that although the id of a certain folder always stays constant, every file in that folder would have a random string before its filename which makes this method useless. I should learn to think more thoroughly.
While they are cleaning up one singleton folder, I hope they will clean up another set of singleton folders. Namely, app folders. I realize that giving every app access to your entire Dropbox is a bad idea, but apps only being able to access "Apps/The App Name/" is like only being able to share files in "People/[email protected]/". For one, it completely kills the ability to have multiple apps use the same files.
What would work better is an "Add to App" model. If I want to use a folder as, say, my Calepin blog, I would go to the Dropbox Web interface (maybe even the GUI client) and click "Add to Calepin." Then if I also wanted to use it as my Epistle Notes folder, there are absolutely zero issues.
[+] [-] jellicle|13 years ago|reply
A major step backwards for Dropbox.
[+] [-] _delirium|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] sidcool1234|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] bane|13 years ago|reply
Here's some better ideas:
- harden up the way users want to use the public folder and make it more like a CDN
- Add another price tier if they must to ensure it works!
- Let users host web sites out of their public folder! Hand craft HTML still has a place among basic users who just want to put up a web page about their dog!
- put media specific folders in the public folder (maybe at different price tiers) and turn it into a flickr/soundcloud/youtube competitor!
[+] [-] JoshuaRedmond|13 years ago|reply
I think this is one of the reasons they are phasing out the public folder, as people are able to do exactly that[1]. I remember it was mentioned on Lifehacker a while back[2], so maybe its becoming an issue. With the share functionality, you just get the code[3], making it impossible to use dropbox in this way.
[1] - http://dl.dropbox.com/u/4146904/HelloHN.html
[2] - http://lifehacker.com/5528104/use-dropbox-to-share-and-host-...
[3] - https://www.dropbox.com/s/6d3tz52kv87we0w/HelloHN.html
[+] [-] glesica|13 years ago|reply
Dropbox is a file storage and sharing service, not a CDN or web host. Just because it could be hacked to make it a CDN or web host doesn't mean those things are highly desirable to customers or good for their actual business.
[+] [-] chucknelson|13 years ago|reply
I'm not sure about that. Isn't that what all of the free blogging services and/or facebook are for?
[+] [-] villagefool|13 years ago|reply
Is it really a good idea to open multiple fronts against services which are 'pro' at what they do?
[+] [-] smarx|13 years ago|reply
Dropbox is awesome as a publishing mechanism for static websites, but public folders were never an ideal host. (Ugly URLs, no default document, etc.)
My startup, site44.com, was built to address the desire to host static websites using Dropbox. We're a better solution for that particular use case.
[+] [-] Florin_Andrei|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] runn1ng|13 years ago|reply
If you got the link, made by "Get link", and you don't like the innecessary preview in browser, just add "?dl=1" to the end of the link
example: https://www.dropbox.com/s/1axoy96uwa80wko/matfyzak%20%281%29... - ugly preview page https://www.dropbox.com/s/1axoy96uwa80wko/matfyzak%20%281%29... - sane PDF link
[+] [-] j_s|13 years ago|reply
And with changes like the one being discussed here I'm guessing a referrer / login check will be in place at some point in the future (basically downgrading DropBox public sharing to the equivalent of Google Sites).
Edit: It's also worth noting that this parameter forces a download rather than opening things in the browser when possible.
[+] [-] lobster_johnson|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] czottmann|13 years ago|reply
That being said: it's an undocumented feature, thus can't be taken as granted (and so might be removed at any point in time without warning), and the path is still cryptic.
[+] [-] deefour|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] atarian|13 years ago|reply
EDIT: And for those of you concerned by any impact on using Dropbox as a CDN, there shouldn't be any issues. The links that Dropbox generates from your files have a bit of chrome (a preview of the contents of the file and a couple of buttons), but you can still get a direct link from the "Download" button.
[+] [-] antihero|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] Cancel|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] euroclydon|13 years ago|reply
Dropbox has brought simple file synchronization between machines that are not necessarily on the same network, to the masses, but they need to do it in away that doesn't make you want to drop Dropbox when it goes wrong. I had a machine with Dropbox installed turned off for a year, and when I turned it on, it's clock was wrong, so when I updated the clock, Dropbox deleted all files in my Dropbox that were newer than the last time I had that machine running. What did it delete? Hard to tell. And Dropbox doesn't support restoration for folders, or points in time, just single files.
[+] [-] snsr|13 years ago|reply
While off-topic, this is a concerning scenario that I hadn't considered.
[+] [-] ceejayoz|13 years ago|reply
That's news to me. And to Dropbox: http://cl.ly/3y0r47461p443f3j300u
[+] [-] Florin_Andrei|13 years ago|reply
Auto-upload solves all sorts of issues I had, or things nagging me in the back of my mind, from realistic ones like transferring photos to computers, all the way to paranoid fantasies like "I wish I could snap a picture of this police officer and then laugh in his face - go ahead, beat me up and take the phone from me, it's too late now". :)
[+] [-] zenocon|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] StephenFalken|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] CrazedGeek|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] barik|13 years ago|reply
Some cynics say it's a marketing tactic, but I actually like the preview as well. I don't have any esoteric use cases like using Dropbox to host web pages. I use Dropbox to sync files across machines and to occasionally share large files with my colleagues. Consequently, I find this change to make things more usable, not less.
Just another data point, since the comments here seem to be predominantly negative. Part of what attracted with to Dropbox in the first place is its simplicity. If anything, I'm curious about their business model since I've earned so much space through their competitions and such that I no longer need a paid account.
[+] [-] antihero|13 years ago|reply
This is used a LOT in the web design industry, and taking this out is going to piss a lot of people off.
[+] [-] reneherse|13 years ago|reply
Just about the only thing I use Dropbox for is the public folder. I've gotten many of my friends and collaborators to sign up for the service, based on the recommendation of this very feature. It's been a real boon for rapidly iterating front end mock ups.
Dropping support for what Dropbox evidently regards as "edge use cases" is not how you "build the next Apple or Google". The Public folder may not be used by the majority, but it is the domain of the geekiest, most hacker-spirited segment of users. Why trample that most creative segment?
The removal of my team's files from Dropbox and searching for a better sharing method begins now.
[+] [-] soupboy|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] unknown|13 years ago|reply
[deleted]
[+] [-] johns|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] mkup|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] losvedir|13 years ago|reply
I was unaware you could share any folder/file before so I just played around with it. From your file manager, right click any dropbox file or folder and select 'Get Link'. The browser will open and send you to a page displaying all those files and folders. You can copy/paste that link to anyone.
Is the only difference that in the case of linking to a single file, rather than a full directory, the link clicker now sees a preview of the file (with a big Download button) instead of downloading it directly.
Isn't that actually an improvement, so the linker isn't just blindly trusting and downloading a file from some random link? That seems ripe for abuse, if users got used to that mindset.
[+] [-] derefr|13 years ago|reply
> After July 31, we will no longer create Public folders in any new Dropbox accounts.
Now, I've deleted my Public folder before, and it seems that recreating a folder named Public in the Dropbox root and restarting the sync daemon was all that was needed to convert it back into "the" Public folder.
So, for those new users, will this change mean that "the folder named Public will no longer have special-cased semantics, unless a flag is set on your account saying you're grandfathered into the old behavior", or does this change mean "we'll leave in the code that makes the Public folder work the way it does--but just not generate one for new users when setting up their dropbox, so they must explicitly create it themselves?" It seems to me that the latter is the most simple/elegant option, technically, and the one I'd go for if I was a Dropbox engineer and hadn't specifically been told to make it impossible for people to use Public folders from now on.
[+] [-] protospork|13 years ago|reply
My question is: How long is that functionality going to stick around for legacy users after it's been hidden by default?
EDIT: Indefinitely. I wonder if that's according to the modern usage or the dictionary one... http://forums.dropbox.com/topic.php?id=62424&replies=8#p...
And to answer your original question, I was wrong and new users won't get access at all: http://forums.dropbox.com/topic.php?page=2&id=62381&...
[+] [-] phwd|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] jncraton|13 years ago|reply
From the Dropbox staff response:
"All current users retain their Dropbox Public folder, and it's function continues."
This news was intended for developers who rely on Public for app functionality. The public folder is not going away for existing users.
[+] [-] zapt02|13 years ago|reply
The sharing functionality is not the same at all since it gives every file an obfuscated name, making it impossible to link directly in an effective fashion.
This feature is the only thing that has kept me from switching to a competing provider (Sugarsync, GDrive).
[+] [-] mkhattab|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] _delirium|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] gavreh|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] picklefish|13 years ago|reply
I also use the public folder daily for sharing screenshots and other files. It really has solved the filesharing problem for me and I'm disappointed they are adding to the complexity to such an easy and great filesharing method.
EDIT: Also the only reason I'm still with dropbox is the public folder, I moved all my other data to Google Drive when it was released...
[+] [-] coolnow|13 years ago|reply
Don't say Dropbox creates a unique token for every link made, which means in that case, we'd have to create a link through Dropbox first. Anyone see any huge flaws in this? (first post)
[+] [-] Jimmie|13 years ago|reply
Seriously breaks using the folder as a simple content server.
[+] [-] coolnow|13 years ago|reply
[+] [-] LeafStorm|13 years ago|reply
What would work better is an "Add to App" model. If I want to use a folder as, say, my Calepin blog, I would go to the Dropbox Web interface (maybe even the GUI client) and click "Add to Calepin." Then if I also wanted to use it as my Epistle Notes folder, there are absolutely zero issues.
[+] [-] kuroir|13 years ago|reply
I'll stop using Dropbox when they release this.
[+] [-] kenrikm|13 years ago|reply