3 ms·
What's also impressive is doing away with Dropbox's clunky "selective sync". While having everything stored locally sounds like a good idea at first, as you sto
by chadnickbok 11y ago
What's also impressive is doing away with Dropbox's clunky "selective sync". While having everything stored locally sounds like a good idea at first, as you store more and more data is gets less and less user-friendly; in other words, power-users get the worst user experience.
Additionally, creating an easy way to share files with friends without taking up their quota is awesome. This looks like it could be a very, very powerful competitor to Dropbox.
- deleted 11y ago[deleted]
- lewisl9029 11y agoAt one point OneDrive used a similar approach, and power users loved it. But they've since moved away from that in favor of Dropbox-style selective sync for reasons that didn't seem very convincing to me. [1] [1] http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/11/onedrive-getting-worse-to-get-better-in-windows-10/ http://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2014/11/onedri...
- IshKebab 11y agoNot storing files locally sounds like a good idea at first - you don't have any syncing issues. But nobody has a perfect always-on internet connection. Having files local is worth the occasional sync cockup.
- chadnickbok 11y agoOh for sure there's a reason that approach is dropbox's default - its really hard for people to understand their files aren't really "there". That said, my point is more that for people who start storing 100GB+ of data, it becomes harder and harder to actually manage which bits you want at any time.