13 ms·

Dropbox' Public/ folders will be phased out soon

213 points by czottmann 14y ago

mkhattab 14y ago
Well, this sucks. Are they removing this feature to cut down on bandwidth? Or perhaps piracy?
- _delirium 14y ago
  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.
  - mkhattab 14y ago
    Yes, however, the new way seems counter intuitive. It would be difficult to keep track of what is publicly shared, at least in an organized manner.
    - parfe 14y ago
      You could organize all the files you want to share into a single folder. Maybe name it something like Share/ or Public/
      - bane 14y ago
        If only Dropbox had a folder, perhaps already called Public, that you could organize your shared crap into...
        parfe 14y ago
        Right Click Any Folder, Dropbox -> Get a Link
      - statictype 14y ago
        But you would still have to generate links for each individual file in there right?
        parfe 14y ago
        I right clicked a random folder and used "Get a Link" and I was able to browse to it without being logged into Firefox. What more do you want?
        statictype 14y ago
        ok. Didn't realize you could generate a link for a folder. That makes it far better.
- lipponlabang 14y ago
  What are you on about? Why would it cut down bandwidth? You can still share files, in exactly the same way, just on an individual basis.
mkup 14y ago
People started to use Dropbox as a free CDN, didn't they? Why do we need AWS CloudFront if we have Dropbox? :)
- reaganing 14y ago
  That seems the likely reason to me.
- lwhi 14y ago
  I agree .. this is probably the reason. However I think the fact that dropbox could be utilized in unexpected ways, provided the company with a great deal of goodwill and singled them out as innovators in an otherwise stale market. Sorry, tried to upvote you but hit down by accident as my fingers are too fat.
- TillE 14y ago
  They've always had a public bandwidth limit, though, even for paid users. And this change hardly affects that anyway, except for being an inconvenience.
- driverdan 14y ago
  Because S3 makes a terrible CDN. The latency is bad and can vary significantly. Using it as a CDN for very large files is fine but for standard static web assets it's terrible.
  - ceejayoz 14y ago
    Where was S3 mentioned? The post said CloudFront.
    - treyp 14y ago
      Dropbox uses S3
      - ceejayoz 14y ago
        Yes, but not directly. They've built or are using a CDN in front of S3, just like CloudFront.
Spittie 14y ago
This suck. But it was kinda oblivious that they were going to remove it. It was never advertised as a feature, and it was made more complicate that the "normal" sharing. Probably they want to stop people from using it as a cdn/server, something that it was never made for.
phwd 14y ago
Dropbox public folders for new accounts will be phased out. As mentioned in the link, all current users can continue to use it.
- jncraton 14y ago
  It seems like most people here seem to be missing this fact. 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.
  - Jimmie 14y ago
    Worry is still warranted. Removing a feature for new accounts is a very clear step in the direction of completely removing the feature. Yes, current accounts keep the feature the whole point of grandfathering features is to eventually phase them out entirely.
  - mnicole 14y ago
    Grandfathered users have been burned many, many times before.
atarian 14y ago
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.
- Cancel 14y ago
  In that case they should implement instant shared link creation, not via opening a web browser.
  - atarian 14y ago
    You can get still get a link via right-click menu (at least on Mac OSX) for any file in your Dropbox folder (including the ones outside of the Dropbox > Public folder).
    - bane 14y ago
      The problem is that you could share a link and it'd be seamlessly downloaded by a receiver of the link....you could even use them to handle images in web pages for example. Now? The person who is receiving the link has to go to a web page, then click download. It's an unnecessary extra step and a downgrade in the user experience. Even worse, it's now harder to keep track of what you have shared and what you don't. From DB's perspective this is most likely to force additional eyeballs onto their product by forcing them to hit a webpage before download, but it's a lousy user experience for all involved. To the receiver of the link DB just looks like an old fashioned file-sharing site a la megaupload and not something special.
      - CrazedGeek 14y ago
        "To the receiver of the link DB just looks like an old fashioned file-sharing site a la megaupload and not something special." How do the direct links help DB look "special"? To me, they scream "generic CDN".
StephenFalken 14y ago
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.
- CrazedGeek 14y ago
  If I may refer you to a previous comment: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4115879 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4115879
  - StephenFalken 14y ago
    Well, now the "get link" drop-down menu item sends you to a webpage, where you can finally click "Download". It's a total waste of time. The fast workflow of the Public/ folder will be gone.
  - mparlane 14y ago
    Why do people seem to think the two different links are the same? One is direct, one is a splash page :(
zapt02 14y ago
This is an outrage. 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).
ry0ohki 14y ago
Wish the topic of this thread was renamed to not cause hysteria. You can still share publicly, it just doesn't need to be a in a magic folder first. Although the magic folder was a great way of remembering what you had shared, I'm sure the Dropbox folks will come up with some other way of reminding me about my publicly shared files.
- dereg 14y ago
  The hysteria, if any, would be about the fact that all shared links would direct you to a splash page on the web on which you'd have to click on another link to download the shared object, as opposed to the current public folder serving up direct links (w/o the added step).
  - rane 14y ago
    Also, you can't easily get the link on the clipboard. You're forced to open a browser and then copy the link from the page. ?dl=1 seems to solve the preview issue, though.
bane 14y ago
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!
- chucknelson 14y ago
  "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?
- villagefool 14y ago
  >> - put media specific folders in the public folder (maybe at different price tiers) and turn it into a flickr/soundcloud/youtube competitor! Is it really a good idea to open multiple fronts against services which are 'pro' at what they do?
  - SoftwareMaven 14y ago
    I would LOVE it if DB became a YouTube competitor. I don't share many videos on YT because it is so annoying to upload them. If I could just fling them in a DB folder and know my online video library was growing, my family and I would be posting many, many more. However, I'd understand why DB would stay far away from that (too distracting from the core mission). They have to find somewhere new to grow into, though. I'd look into building an app to do it, but they limit apps to 150MB files.
    - simonbrown 14y ago
runn1ng 14y ago
A hint to everyone: 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.pdf https://www.dropbox.com/s/1axoy96uwa80wko/matfyzak%20%281%29... - ugly preview page https://www.dropbox.com/s/1axoy96uwa80wko/matfyzak%20%281%29.pdf?dl=1 https://www.dropbox.com/s/1axoy96uwa80wko/matfyzak%20%281%29... - sane PDF link
- j_s 14y ago
  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.
- lobster_johnson 14y ago
  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.
- deefour 14y ago
  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.
  - sirclueless 14y ago
    The problem there is that it doesn't solve their hotlinking problem.
  - Gormo 14y ago
    Delete the '?dl=1' parameter, and change the URL from 'www.dropbox.com' to 'dl.dropbox.com'. This yields a proper direct link to the file, but the directory tree is still inaccessible.
coolnow 14y ago
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)
- Jimmie 14y ago
  The browser will treat the link as a download instead of content. You click on an image link, it downloads the image instead of displaying the image. Seriously breaks using the folder as a simple content server.
  - coolnow 14y ago
    sigh, i just realised HTML files would just download and not open this way. Why Dropbox, why?
- coolnow 14y ago
  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.
losvedir 14y ago
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.
- czottmann 14y ago
  It's a nice and simple way to serve a webpage or two. Here's an example: I have a folder with an `index.html` and a `image.jpg` in it. The HTML file can reference that JPG by requesting `./image.jpg`, the browser will try to fetch it from the same directory — and it will find it. Also, the links to an users `Public` folder will not expire. With the new'ish "share link" functionality, I can't do that, since every file is served from is own path, from its own preview page. To get that link, I need to query the API; to get the direct/media link, I need to query the API again, the resulting link will be different, and it will expire after four hours. So no more dropping a mockup for a client in a folder, sending her the link to the `index.html` and be done with it. That's a step backwards. Yes, I could store the files on my own server, but that's besides the point.
- Jimmie 14y ago
  I use dropbox a lot to send stuff to friends over IRC. Screenshots, save files, snippets of code. You can put up a HTML page that loads a SWF from your public folder, no worries. I have some music in there too and a HTML music player that points to the files so I have a simple music library on any computer with web access. Sending you to a landing page instead of just serving up the content is unnecessary and disrupts all of these activities.
- aimatt 14y ago
  If you host an html file with a relative img tag in the public folder it will just work. If you do it with the get link method, you'd have to get a link for each resource. Public folder is really helpful for hosting sites that are in development that you want to share with your clients.
jellicle 14y ago
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. A major step backwards for Dropbox.
- _delirium 14y ago
  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 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.
  - nl 14y ago
    Dropbox has a website? (Yes I knew Dropbox had a website. I'm speaking for all those users who downloaded it once and now use it to synchronize their computers, never realizing there is a website too. And yes, these people do use the public folders: they right click & send the link to someone, but don't connect that to the idea they can see their own files on the web)
    - antidoh 14y ago
      I have helped a computerphobe (hates computers and Internet, clueless, but must use them) with Dropbox. She gets that her folders on various computers around town are synchronized. I had a very difficult time explaining to her that her same folders and files are available via the web interface. Those people are out there.
      - tammer 14y ago
        Most people (as in the majority of the population with access to digital media) have a very difficult time understanding that the filesystem is a hierarchy. I'm always espousing the necessity of backups to my friends/family, which means I've usually got the role of setting up a Dropbox account for someone without a technical background. When I say that their "My Documents" folder is a level above their Dropbox folder, I get a blank stare. While many users can create folders and somewhat organize their data, to most non-experienced users I've encountered, the mental image of a hierarchy of data segmented into directories is not represented clearly enough by the GUI's of modern operating systems. When people hear the word "folder" and see the folder icon, they don't think of it (the way we do) as a metaphysical representation of the overall directory tree. They simply think of a folder on a desk. A folder on a desk is not usually inside another folder. It's usually just sitting there. So a user without knowledge of the tree/hierarchy model just sees various sets of folders, not a set of folders within other folders. Therefore getting things into their Dropbox is an exercise of mental visualization that takes time and explanation. Further, once I've somewhat explained this concept, I usually leave it there and tell them that "the green checkmark means you're backed up." The web interface is a whole new exercise in visualization that is quite a bit more difficult to pick up. Even after I tell people that "your data is synced to the web interface," they don't initially understand what that entails, and believe the web interface is separate from the files they've "backed up" on "their Dropbox" (the local Dropbox folder.) My girlfriend (A/B test subject #1) is used to using the "upload" button on the Dropbox web interface because for a good while she didn't realize things on her local folder would sync to the web interface. She's also not entirely comfortable with the hierarchy model, and the "upload" model is in fact easier for her to understand. Reminds me of the SJ quote from an AllthingsD conference where he says every usability test hits a wall when the user encounters the filesystem. I've seen this evidenced again and again.
obilgic 14y ago
I always hated that folder.
- nodrama 14y ago
  :) The first thing I did when I installed Dropbox, was to delete that folder. After that, when I wanted to test how Dropbox works, I recreated it. I loved that all the public stuff was in... Public. After using Dropbox for some time I realized that using Public was simple but limiting: I have a file that I want to keep in a specific Dropbox subfolder together with other files (organize things) and, at the same time, I want to share only that one file. So I have to copy it in Public folder too, which mean I have it in two places. What they need to do it what they did: share anything but... add all the public stuff in one, easy to see place. Maybe softlinks in the Public folder with the same subfolder structure as the Dropbox folder. And when you delete a softlink or an entire folder, all the linked files will not be public anymore.
barik 14y ago
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 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.
- antihero 14y ago
  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.
  - barik 14y ago
    From my perspective, it seems like these customers are not the target market for Dropbox. As such, I hope that Dropbox continues to cater to people like myself, who use Dropbox for synchronization across machines instead of as a substitute for hosting services as other people are trying to do. It's nice that they were able to do so, but I'm not sure it was ever advertised as such. To me, Dropbox sharing is a substitute for e-mail attachments, not for use as a CDN. The latest Thunderbird e-mail update seems to reinforce this belief [1]. I think that even the "Photo Gallery" feature that they currently offer is overkill. I like Dropbox because they (for the large part) specialize in doing one thing and doing it well. I hope that they remain that way. Services that tend to provide everything to everyone end up satisfying no one. [1] http://www.ghacks.net/2012/04/27/using-thunderbirds-new-filelink-feature-for-large-file-attachments/ http://www.ghacks.net/2012/04/27/using-thunderbirds-new-file...
gavreh 14y ago
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.
euroclydon 14y ago
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.
- snsr 14y ago
  > I updated the clock, Dropbox deleted all files in my Dropbox that were newer than the last time I had that machine running. While off-topic, this is a concerning scenario that I hadn't considered.
  - euroclydon 14y ago
    Prior to that, Dropbox just worked for me, but now I see it for the dangerous black box that it is. It can't be trusted as a backup solution for important files. It's only a convenient toy.
  - chimeracoder 14y ago
    Does it still have the symlink problem? (Creating a symlink and then deleting it would delete the original file).
  - Gormo 14y ago
    It's pretty bizarre if Dropbox is solely using client-side timestamps as the basis for comparison.
- ceejayoz 14y ago
  > And Dropbox doesn't support restoration for folders That's news to me. And to Dropbox: http://cl.ly/3y0r47461p443f3j300u http://cl.ly/3y0r47461p443f3j300u
knes 14y ago
//Shameless plug My friends and I have been working on a way to easily send files. It's called Dropdock. You can check it out at http://getdropdock.com http://getdropdock.com . If you want to signup, use the invite code DROPDOCKBETAP1. Feedbacks more than welcome :)
- hack_edu 14y ago
  I'm shocked that this isn't a parody; considering your service, choice of color, and even your URL are already a blatant ripoff of Dropbox. Shameless indeed...
derefr 14y ago
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.
- protospork 14y ago
  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? 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#post-443337 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&replies=53#post-443340 http://forums.dropbox.com/topic.php?page=2&id=62381&...
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
  - TillE 14y ago
    Nope. > Unfortunately, new users will not be able to get the functionality just by creating a new Public folder. http://forums.dropbox.com/topic.php?page=2&id=62381&replies=44#post-443340 http://forums.dropbox.com/topic.php?page=2&id=62381&... For whatever reason, they seem intent on killing the feature. Extremely disappointing.
kenrikm 14y ago
Bad, Bad, Bad idea.. I pay for Dropbox every month however if they are going to start cutting useful features I might as well just go with iCloud.
czottmann 14y ago
Someone has added an idea to the official Dropbox idea board. Vote it up if you feel like it, maybe it'll help. https://www.dropbox.com/votebox/9527/save-the-public-folder- https://www.dropbox.com/votebox/9527/save-the-public-folder-
kuroir 14y ago
Any Dropbox alternatives? I use Dropbox with an automatic script to upload screenshots / files / you name it, on Mac. I'll stop using Dropbox when they release this.
- rane 14y ago
  - The feature is not going away for existing users. - I love Cloudapp for sharing files on Mac. Take a screenshot using Skitch, and drag it to the cloud icon -> URL goes to clipboard, very simple.
arihant 14y ago
I don't mind the splash page, but I do mind the obfuscated links. Previously, I could just tell the name of file to the friend who new my public folder address. The 'get link' feature adds garbage in the link that nobody can hope to remember.
- BHSPitMonkey 14y ago
  I mind the splash page (and content disposition headers). 1. For quickly showing ideas/images/screenshots to friends/colleagues, it becomes an ordeal. (Okay, click through a marketing page, then the file starts to download, then they need to open the file in an image viewer, then they need to find and delete the file. All this instead of click, see, close tab.) 2. It breaks the process of embedding media into web pages / forum posts / etc. 3. It breaks the process of being able to say, throw together some HTML, CSS, Javascript files, and images into a folder under /Public and have the public URL function in a browser.
  - czottmann 14y ago
    Well, you can go to any 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 might be removed at any point in time without warning), and the path is still cryptic. Man, I am not happy at the moment.
reneherse 14y ago
Houston, we have a problem. 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 14y ago
  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?
  - BHSPitMonkey 14y ago
    I often use the feature the same way. It's only "up for everyone in the world to see" if everyone has the URL, and nothing I ever share is so sensitive that the risk of someone bruteforcing all of the possible file/folder names in my Public folder poses a threat. (I imagine Dropbox would catch on to such attempts at the network level, anyway.)
  - aimatt 14y ago
    I use it in the same way too.
  - Centigonal 14y ago
    I use it this way, too. If this feature goes away, I will stop using Dropbox, simply because most of the convenience that gave the service value for me would be gone. I don't think he's overreacting.
  - reneherse 14y ago
    Different strokes and all that. I prefer to do mockups mostly in the browser, and using the public folder as a local server is an easy way to check pages on multiple devices. (I'm sure a more technically inclined person would just set up their own server.) If I were doing anything requiring confidentiality or stealth I would work another way.
picklefish 14y ago
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...
BrainInAJar 14y ago
"Dropbox' utility will be phased out soon"
Karunamon 14y ago
My decision to abandon Dropbox in favor of Google Drive seems to have been the correct one, if they're going to go the route of removing functionality and keeping their prices static. (Note: I'm aware that Google Drive doesn't have this function. I don't use it for that anyways.)
- rlu 14y ago
  Out of curiosity, what was your rationale for choosing Google Drive over SkyDrive? SkyDrive: * gives you 7GB vs Google's 5. (and 25gb if you ever used it before the client got released) * has a sick feature where, from skydrive.com, you can browse your entire computer and download files. So if you forget to put a file in the skydrive folder you can still access it remotely * supports more platforms than Google Drive * doesn't destroy Office documents Yes, I am affiliated with Microsoft but I am genuinely interested in why you chose to migrate to Google Drive over SkyDrive. Did you not know about the things I listed or does Google offer something you care about more?
  - Karunamon 14y ago
    The big one was the file upload limit. The fact that I have X amount of storage and can't split that up any way I want always struck me as a bit silly. Another one was that I'm already heavily invested into Google's ecosystem (apps, android, the whole nine yards), so splitting that up with another company didn't make much sense.
hippich 14y ago
Recently I sent DMCA notice to Dropbox to remove my work from one of their user's public folder. Which was basically used to host images. They responded quickly to my request. I am wondering if this is a true reason, and not showing dropbox splash screen. It is so easy to share files with their public folder right now which might cause copyright problems in future.
deleted 14y ago
[deleted]
aimatt 14y ago
I really hope they don't remove this. This is the only reason I pay them instead of Google Drive.
LeafStorm 14y ago
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/theiremail@example.com/". 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.
URSpider94 14y ago
My bet is that it's a financial decision. It's easy to see how hotlinked image files (or even entire web sites run out of /Public) could account for a major portion of Dropbox's outgoing bandwidth charges. However, if that were it, you'd think they would consider keeping the feature for paid subscribers.
chris_wot 14y ago
Time for OwnCloud?

213 points by czottmann 14y ago

mkhattab 14y ago

Well, this sucks. Are they removing this feature to cut down on bandwidth? Or perhaps piracy?

_delirium 14y ago
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.
- mkhattab 14y ago
  Yes, however, the new way seems counter intuitive. It would be difficult to keep track of what is publicly shared, at least in an organized manner.
  - parfe 14y ago
    You could organize all the files you want to share into a single folder. Maybe name it something like Share/ or Public/
    - bane 14y ago
      If only Dropbox had a folder, perhaps already called Public, that you could organize your shared crap into...
      - parfe 14y ago
        Right Click Any Folder, Dropbox -> Get a Link
    - statictype 14y ago
      But you would still have to generate links for each individual file in there right?
      - parfe 14y ago
        I right clicked a random folder and used "Get a Link" and I was able to browse to it without being logged into Firefox. What more do you want?
        statictype 14y ago
        ok. Didn't realize you could generate a link for a folder. That makes it far better.
lipponlabang 14y ago
What are you on about? Why would it cut down bandwidth? You can still share files, in exactly the same way, just on an individual basis.

mkup 14y ago

People started to use Dropbox as a free CDN, didn't they? Why do we need AWS CloudFront if we have Dropbox? :)

reaganing 14y ago
That seems the likely reason to me.
lwhi 14y ago
I agree .. this is probably the reason. However I think the fact that dropbox could be utilized in unexpected ways, provided the company with a great deal of goodwill and singled them out as innovators in an otherwise stale market. Sorry, tried to upvote you but hit down by accident as my fingers are too fat.
TillE 14y ago
They've always had a public bandwidth limit, though, even for paid users. And this change hardly affects that anyway, except for being an inconvenience.
driverdan 14y ago
Because S3 makes a terrible CDN. The latency is bad and can vary significantly. Using it as a CDN for very large files is fine but for standard static web assets it's terrible.
- ceejayoz 14y ago
  Where was S3 mentioned? The post said CloudFront.
  - treyp 14y ago
    Dropbox uses S3
    - ceejayoz 14y ago
      Yes, but not directly. They've built or are using a CDN in front of S3, just like CloudFront.

Spittie 14y ago

This suck. But it was kinda oblivious that they were going to remove it. It was never advertised as a feature, and it was made more complicate that the "normal" sharing. Probably they want to stop people from using it as a cdn/server, something that it was never made for.

phwd 14y ago

Dropbox public folders for new accounts will be phased out. As mentioned in the link, all current users can continue to use it.

jncraton 14y ago
It seems like most people here seem to be missing this fact. 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.
- Jimmie 14y ago
  Worry is still warranted. Removing a feature for new accounts is a very clear step in the direction of completely removing the feature. Yes, current accounts keep the feature the whole point of grandfathering features is to eventually phase them out entirely.
- mnicole 14y ago
  Grandfathered users have been burned many, many times before.

atarian 14y ago

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.

Cancel 14y ago
In that case they should implement instant shared link creation, not via opening a web browser.
- atarian 14y ago
  You can get still get a link via right-click menu (at least on Mac OSX) for any file in your Dropbox folder (including the ones outside of the Dropbox > Public folder).
  - bane 14y ago
    The problem is that you could share a link and it'd be seamlessly downloaded by a receiver of the link....you could even use them to handle images in web pages for example. Now? The person who is receiving the link has to go to a web page, then click download. It's an unnecessary extra step and a downgrade in the user experience. Even worse, it's now harder to keep track of what you have shared and what you don't. From DB's perspective this is most likely to force additional eyeballs onto their product by forcing them to hit a webpage before download, but it's a lousy user experience for all involved. To the receiver of the link DB just looks like an old fashioned file-sharing site a la megaupload and not something special.
    - CrazedGeek 14y ago
      "To the receiver of the link DB just looks like an old fashioned file-sharing site a la megaupload and not something special." How do the direct links help DB look "special"? To me, they scream "generic CDN".

StephenFalken 14y ago

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.

CrazedGeek 14y ago
If I may refer you to a previous comment: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4115879 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=4115879
- StephenFalken 14y ago
  Well, now the "get link" drop-down menu item sends you to a webpage, where you can finally click "Download". It's a total waste of time. The fast workflow of the Public/ folder will be gone.
- mparlane 14y ago
  Why do people seem to think the two different links are the same? One is direct, one is a splash page :(

zapt02 14y ago

This is an outrage. 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).

ry0ohki 14y ago

Wish the topic of this thread was renamed to not cause hysteria. You can still share publicly, it just doesn't need to be a in a magic folder first. Although the magic folder was a great way of remembering what you had shared, I'm sure the Dropbox folks will come up with some other way of reminding me about my publicly shared files.

dereg 14y ago
The hysteria, if any, would be about the fact that all shared links would direct you to a splash page on the web on which you'd have to click on another link to download the shared object, as opposed to the current public folder serving up direct links (w/o the added step).
- rane 14y ago
  Also, you can't easily get the link on the clipboard. You're forced to open a browser and then copy the link from the page. ?dl=1 seems to solve the preview issue, though.

bane 14y ago

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!

chucknelson 14y ago
"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?
villagefool 14y ago
>> - put media specific folders in the public folder (maybe at different price tiers) and turn it into a flickr/soundcloud/youtube competitor! Is it really a good idea to open multiple fronts against services which are 'pro' at what they do?
- SoftwareMaven 14y ago
  I would LOVE it if DB became a YouTube competitor. I don't share many videos on YT because it is so annoying to upload them. If I could just fling them in a DB folder and know my online video library was growing, my family and I would be posting many, many more. However, I'd understand why DB would stay far away from that (too distracting from the core mission). They have to find somewhere new to grow into, though. I'd look into building an app to do it, but they limit apps to 150MB files.
  - simonbrown 14y ago

runn1ng 14y ago

A hint to everyone: 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.pdf https://www.dropbox.com/s/1axoy96uwa80wko/matfyzak%20%281%29... - ugly preview page https://www.dropbox.com/s/1axoy96uwa80wko/matfyzak%20%281%29.pdf?dl=1 https://www.dropbox.com/s/1axoy96uwa80wko/matfyzak%20%281%29... - sane PDF link

j_s 14y ago
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.
lobster_johnson 14y ago
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.
deefour 14y ago
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.
- sirclueless 14y ago
  The problem there is that it doesn't solve their hotlinking problem.
- Gormo 14y ago
  Delete the '?dl=1' parameter, and change the URL from 'www.dropbox.com' to 'dl.dropbox.com'. This yields a proper direct link to the file, but the directory tree is still inaccessible.

coolnow 14y ago

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)

Jimmie 14y ago
The browser will treat the link as a download instead of content. You click on an image link, it downloads the image instead of displaying the image. Seriously breaks using the folder as a simple content server.
- coolnow 14y ago
  sigh, i just realised HTML files would just download and not open this way. Why Dropbox, why?
coolnow 14y ago
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.

losvedir 14y ago

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.

czottmann 14y ago
It's a nice and simple way to serve a webpage or two. Here's an example: I have a folder with an `index.html` and a `image.jpg` in it. The HTML file can reference that JPG by requesting `./image.jpg`, the browser will try to fetch it from the same directory — and it will find it. Also, the links to an users `Public` folder will not expire. With the new'ish "share link" functionality, I can't do that, since every file is served from is own path, from its own preview page. To get that link, I need to query the API; to get the direct/media link, I need to query the API again, the resulting link will be different, and it will expire after four hours. So no more dropping a mockup for a client in a folder, sending her the link to the `index.html` and be done with it. That's a step backwards. Yes, I could store the files on my own server, but that's besides the point.
Jimmie 14y ago
I use dropbox a lot to send stuff to friends over IRC. Screenshots, save files, snippets of code. You can put up a HTML page that loads a SWF from your public folder, no worries. I have some music in there too and a HTML music player that points to the files so I have a simple music library on any computer with web access. Sending you to a landing page instead of just serving up the content is unnecessary and disrupts all of these activities.
aimatt 14y ago
If you host an html file with a relative img tag in the public folder it will just work. If you do it with the get link method, you'd have to get a link for each resource. Public folder is really helpful for hosting sites that are in development that you want to share with your clients.

jellicle 14y ago

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. A major step backwards for Dropbox.

_delirium 14y ago
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 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.
- nl 14y ago
  Dropbox has a website? (Yes I knew Dropbox had a website. I'm speaking for all those users who downloaded it once and now use it to synchronize their computers, never realizing there is a website too. And yes, these people do use the public folders: they right click & send the link to someone, but don't connect that to the idea they can see their own files on the web)
  - antidoh 14y ago
    I have helped a computerphobe (hates computers and Internet, clueless, but must use them) with Dropbox. She gets that her folders on various computers around town are synchronized. I had a very difficult time explaining to her that her same folders and files are available via the web interface. Those people are out there.
    - tammer 14y ago
      Most people (as in the majority of the population with access to digital media) have a very difficult time understanding that the filesystem is a hierarchy. I'm always espousing the necessity of backups to my friends/family, which means I've usually got the role of setting up a Dropbox account for someone without a technical background. When I say that their "My Documents" folder is a level above their Dropbox folder, I get a blank stare. While many users can create folders and somewhat organize their data, to most non-experienced users I've encountered, the mental image of a hierarchy of data segmented into directories is not represented clearly enough by the GUI's of modern operating systems. When people hear the word "folder" and see the folder icon, they don't think of it (the way we do) as a metaphysical representation of the overall directory tree. They simply think of a folder on a desk. A folder on a desk is not usually inside another folder. It's usually just sitting there. So a user without knowledge of the tree/hierarchy model just sees various sets of folders, not a set of folders within other folders. Therefore getting things into their Dropbox is an exercise of mental visualization that takes time and explanation. Further, once I've somewhat explained this concept, I usually leave it there and tell them that "the green checkmark means you're backed up." The web interface is a whole new exercise in visualization that is quite a bit more difficult to pick up. Even after I tell people that "your data is synced to the web interface," they don't initially understand what that entails, and believe the web interface is separate from the files they've "backed up" on "their Dropbox" (the local Dropbox folder.) My girlfriend (A/B test subject #1) is used to using the "upload" button on the Dropbox web interface because for a good while she didn't realize things on her local folder would sync to the web interface. She's also not entirely comfortable with the hierarchy model, and the "upload" model is in fact easier for her to understand. Reminds me of the SJ quote from an AllthingsD conference where he says every usability test hits a wall when the user encounters the filesystem. I've seen this evidenced again and again.

obilgic 14y ago

I always hated that folder.

nodrama 14y ago
:) The first thing I did when I installed Dropbox, was to delete that folder. After that, when I wanted to test how Dropbox works, I recreated it. I loved that all the public stuff was in... Public. After using Dropbox for some time I realized that using Public was simple but limiting: I have a file that I want to keep in a specific Dropbox subfolder together with other files (organize things) and, at the same time, I want to share only that one file. So I have to copy it in Public folder too, which mean I have it in two places. What they need to do it what they did: share anything but... add all the public stuff in one, easy to see place. Maybe softlinks in the Public folder with the same subfolder structure as the Dropbox folder. And when you delete a softlink or an entire folder, all the linked files will not be public anymore.

barik 14y ago

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 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.

antihero 14y ago
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.
- barik 14y ago
  From my perspective, it seems like these customers are not the target market for Dropbox. As such, I hope that Dropbox continues to cater to people like myself, who use Dropbox for synchronization across machines instead of as a substitute for hosting services as other people are trying to do. It's nice that they were able to do so, but I'm not sure it was ever advertised as such. To me, Dropbox sharing is a substitute for e-mail attachments, not for use as a CDN. The latest Thunderbird e-mail update seems to reinforce this belief [1]. I think that even the "Photo Gallery" feature that they currently offer is overkill. I like Dropbox because they (for the large part) specialize in doing one thing and doing it well. I hope that they remain that way. Services that tend to provide everything to everyone end up satisfying no one. [1] http://www.ghacks.net/2012/04/27/using-thunderbirds-new-filelink-feature-for-large-file-attachments/ http://www.ghacks.net/2012/04/27/using-thunderbirds-new-file...

gavreh 14y ago

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.

euroclydon 14y ago

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.

snsr 14y ago
> I updated the clock, Dropbox deleted all files in my Dropbox that were newer than the last time I had that machine running. While off-topic, this is a concerning scenario that I hadn't considered.
- euroclydon 14y ago
  Prior to that, Dropbox just worked for me, but now I see it for the dangerous black box that it is. It can't be trusted as a backup solution for important files. It's only a convenient toy.
- chimeracoder 14y ago
  Does it still have the symlink problem? (Creating a symlink and then deleting it would delete the original file).
- Gormo 14y ago
  It's pretty bizarre if Dropbox is solely using client-side timestamps as the basis for comparison.
ceejayoz 14y ago
> And Dropbox doesn't support restoration for folders That's news to me. And to Dropbox: http://cl.ly/3y0r47461p443f3j300u http://cl.ly/3y0r47461p443f3j300u

knes 14y ago

//Shameless plug My friends and I have been working on a way to easily send files. It's called Dropdock. You can check it out at http://getdropdock.com http://getdropdock.com . If you want to signup, use the invite code DROPDOCKBETAP1. Feedbacks more than welcome :)

hack_edu 14y ago
I'm shocked that this isn't a parody; considering your service, choice of color, and even your URL are already a blatant ripoff of Dropbox. Shameless indeed...

derefr 14y ago

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.

protospork 14y ago
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? 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#post-443337 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&replies=53#post-443340 http://forums.dropbox.com/topic.php?page=2&id=62381&...
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]
- TillE 14y ago
  Nope. > Unfortunately, new users will not be able to get the functionality just by creating a new Public folder. http://forums.dropbox.com/topic.php?page=2&id=62381&replies=44#post-443340 http://forums.dropbox.com/topic.php?page=2&id=62381&... For whatever reason, they seem intent on killing the feature. Extremely disappointing.

kenrikm 14y ago

Bad, Bad, Bad idea.. I pay for Dropbox every month however if they are going to start cutting useful features I might as well just go with iCloud.

czottmann 14y ago

Someone has added an idea to the official Dropbox idea board. Vote it up if you feel like it, maybe it'll help. https://www.dropbox.com/votebox/9527/save-the-public-folder- https://www.dropbox.com/votebox/9527/save-the-public-folder-

kuroir 14y ago

Any Dropbox alternatives? I use Dropbox with an automatic script to upload screenshots / files / you name it, on Mac. I'll stop using Dropbox when they release this.

rane 14y ago
- The feature is not going away for existing users. - I love Cloudapp for sharing files on Mac. Take a screenshot using Skitch, and drag it to the cloud icon -> URL goes to clipboard, very simple.

arihant 14y ago

I don't mind the splash page, but I do mind the obfuscated links. Previously, I could just tell the name of file to the friend who new my public folder address. The 'get link' feature adds garbage in the link that nobody can hope to remember.

BHSPitMonkey 14y ago
I mind the splash page (and content disposition headers). 1. For quickly showing ideas/images/screenshots to friends/colleagues, it becomes an ordeal. (Okay, click through a marketing page, then the file starts to download, then they need to open the file in an image viewer, then they need to find and delete the file. All this instead of click, see, close tab.) 2. It breaks the process of embedding media into web pages / forum posts / etc. 3. It breaks the process of being able to say, throw together some HTML, CSS, Javascript files, and images into a folder under /Public and have the public URL function in a browser.
- czottmann 14y ago
  Well, you can go to any 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 might be removed at any point in time without warning), and the path is still cryptic. Man, I am not happy at the moment.

reneherse 14y ago

Houston, we have a problem. 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 14y ago
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?
- BHSPitMonkey 14y ago
  I often use the feature the same way. It's only "up for everyone in the world to see" if everyone has the URL, and nothing I ever share is so sensitive that the risk of someone bruteforcing all of the possible file/folder names in my Public folder poses a threat. (I imagine Dropbox would catch on to such attempts at the network level, anyway.)
- aimatt 14y ago
  I use it in the same way too.
- Centigonal 14y ago
  I use it this way, too. If this feature goes away, I will stop using Dropbox, simply because most of the convenience that gave the service value for me would be gone. I don't think he's overreacting.
- reneherse 14y ago
  Different strokes and all that. I prefer to do mockups mostly in the browser, and using the public folder as a local server is an easy way to check pages on multiple devices. (I'm sure a more technically inclined person would just set up their own server.) If I were doing anything requiring confidentiality or stealth I would work another way.

picklefish 14y ago

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...

BrainInAJar 14y ago

"Dropbox' utility will be phased out soon"

Karunamon 14y ago

My decision to abandon Dropbox in favor of Google Drive seems to have been the correct one, if they're going to go the route of removing functionality and keeping their prices static. (Note: I'm aware that Google Drive doesn't have this function. I don't use it for that anyways.)

rlu 14y ago
Out of curiosity, what was your rationale for choosing Google Drive over SkyDrive? SkyDrive: * gives you 7GB vs Google's 5. (and 25gb if you ever used it before the client got released) * has a sick feature where, from skydrive.com, you can browse your entire computer and download files. So if you forget to put a file in the skydrive folder you can still access it remotely * supports more platforms than Google Drive * doesn't destroy Office documents Yes, I am affiliated with Microsoft but I am genuinely interested in why you chose to migrate to Google Drive over SkyDrive. Did you not know about the things I listed or does Google offer something you care about more?
- Karunamon 14y ago
  The big one was the file upload limit. The fact that I have X amount of storage and can't split that up any way I want always struck me as a bit silly. Another one was that I'm already heavily invested into Google's ecosystem (apps, android, the whole nine yards), so splitting that up with another company didn't make much sense.

hippich 14y ago

Recently I sent DMCA notice to Dropbox to remove my work from one of their user's public folder. Which was basically used to host images. They responded quickly to my request. I am wondering if this is a true reason, and not showing dropbox splash screen. It is so easy to share files with their public folder right now which might cause copyright problems in future.

deleted 14y ago

[deleted]

aimatt 14y ago

I really hope they don't remove this. This is the only reason I pay them instead of Google Drive.

LeafStorm 14y ago

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/theiremail@example.com/". 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.

URSpider94 14y ago

My bet is that it's a financial decision. It's easy to see how hotlinked image files (or even entire web sites run out of /Public) could account for a major portion of Dropbox's outgoing bandwidth charges. However, if that were it, you'd think they would consider keeping the feature for paid subscribers.

chris_wot 14y ago

Time for OwnCloud?