Dropbox Outage Map

Community Discussion

Tips? Frustrations? Share them here. Useful comments include a description of the problem, city and postal code.

Beware of "support numbers" or "recovery" accounts that might be posted below. Make sure to report and downvote those comments. Avoid posting your personal information.

Dropbox Issues Reports

Latest outage, problems and issue reports in social media:

• 
  OneToothTeXan (@OneToothTeXan) reported 1 minute ago

  I'm so sorry I left my zipper down and my sanity got loose. If found: Men, there's a dropbox. Women: please return to original source.

• 
  Genius Business (@GeniusBusiness_) reported 5 minutes ago

  How Dropbox Spaces was conceived Spaces didn't start as a product idea. It started as a problem Drew Houston says he and his customers were all living. "[Spaces] is part of a bigger evolution we've been on that really started with our customers and realizing that the experience of using technology at work has become incredibly fragmented and distracting." The more he looked at it, the more he saw a cruel irony: the tools built to help us were the ones breaking our concentration. "A lot of the tools we're using that you think would be helping us focus have unintentionally made it impossible to focus. And that's a problem if you need to use your brain at work, because your brain works best when you can focus." That, he decided, was the real enemy. Not a missing feature, but lost focus. He called it "the higher level problem." He could see where it came from. Work simply doesn't look the way it used to: "It's very different from 20 years ago when we got five emails a day, not 500." Twenty years ago you might have just used Office. Now you're in Office and G Suite and Slack and Zoom and Dropbox all at once. 100 tabs, everything blinking at you all day, apps that don't work together. So the framing question became: how do you fix the environment itself? "How do we evolve Dropbox into the app that makes all your other apps work better together?" The breakthrough was a shift in how Houston understood what Dropbox already was. Watching customers, he realized they didn't treat it as a place for their stuff, or as just a folder on the desktop. "It's the place you're going to work." Once he saw it that way, the design conclusions changed: "When we thought about it that way, we realized we would have made a bunch of different decisions, and realized that Dropbox is actually really well positioned to help people focus at work." Two conclusions followed. First, Spaces had to move beyond files. Teams collaborate on far more than documents: Google Docs, Airtable, Figma, Trello and there had never been one place to hold all of it. So Spaces became “an evolution of the shared folder” that “moves it beyond being a folder full of files to an intelligent team workspace for any kind of cloud content.” "You can still have your PowerPoints and PDFs, but they can be next to your Google Docs and Trello boards and whatever else you have. Give you one space, not 10." Second, and this is where the concept sharpened. Spaces had to become a workspace, not a filing cabinet. Houston traced the problem back four decades. The thing we call "the desktop" is, functionally, the operating system: "The interface is the operating system." And it had been frozen in time: "That user experience hasn't really changed... it basically looks the same as the early 80s when it was first introduced on the original Mac." It was designed for a world that no longer exists: "It's this single player static experience that was perfect for when our whole life fit on a couple of floppy discs." So the team ran a thought experiment, start from scratch, for now: "If you were to redesign this for 2019, you'd make a bunch of obvious changes." You'd still want the files and cloud content. But you'd add the things the 80s interface never had: people, activity, comments, a record of what's been happening. You'd organize around the projects you're actually working on. You'd see your calendar, get Slacked, and start a Zoom meeting all without leaving the app. That thought experiment became Spaces.

• 
  John B. Holbein (@JohnHolbein1) reported 9 minutes ago

  Replication has become much easier in the era of generative AI. I'm not the first person to say that. However, I've seen fewer people acknowledge a specific aspect of this lowered cost for replicating scientific work: Generative AI will very soon allow us to assess the robustness of individual scholars' full bodies of work. Soon, we will be to compute measures of which scholars do robust science, and which do not. What's wild is that we may be able to almost do that already. Let me show you what I mean. In June, I gave Claude a pretty basic prompt. It read: "I have a big task for you. I want you to start a folder. Call it Acemoglu Replications. Then, go find as many replication archives for Daron Acemoglu as you can. Keep a spreadsheet of the ones you can find and those you can't. Then, start a replication/reproduction effort on those articles. People have in the past criticized the research designs and general robustness of his individual papers. I want to know how strong his body of work is as a whole. Don't come in with any prior beliefs; be dispassionate." I let Claude run overnight while I slept. When I came back in the morning, 29 of Acemoglu's replication archives were fully loaded in my Dropbox. All the code reproducing the paper's results had run. And there was a first draft of a paper assessing the robustness of Acemoglu's full body of empirical work. I'll admit, the first draft of the paper wasn't great. But with 15 short follow up messages--which took me about an hour to write--I was able to prompt engineer a paper-length examination of Acemoglu's work. I've attached the screen shot of the abstract below. I think this reassessment of Acemoglu's work is certainly not done. I'm posting the abstract as a proof of concept, rather than a definitive answer. I'm not posting the full paper yet because I think it still needs more work. Ultimately, I paused this project for three reasons. 1.) Limited time/topical expertise: Most of Acemoglu's work is outside of my area of topical expertise. So, I have limited time to work on it. What this type of a project really needs is someone who has the time and the know-how to dig into each of the replication's individually to make sure they are doing the right things. I think the ideal approach combines the breadth that LLMs afford and the depth of attention/expertise that humans can give. 2.) Questions about the value of the "assess one scholar at a time" enterprise: I totally get that having a database of scholar-level robustness metrics would be very valuable in theory. But what I don't know is whether this approach is truly valuable. Moreover, doing so would come with distinct challenges. a.) Many journals have very restrictive space constraints. A body of work approach would, of necessity, be very long. b.) Collecting replication archives is harder for some types of scholars (those who post them all on their websites) than others (those who don't). c.) We'd have to think hard about questions like: what scholar-specific robustness metrics would be best? And: how would we deal with the fact that prolific authors' robustness metrics would be estimated much more precisely than less prolific scholars? Additionally, I'm just not sure that "taking on" one scholar at a time has enough scientific merit to pursue. If I measured how robust an individual scholars' work is, I'd ideally want to know where that metric stands vis-a-vis the rest of scholars in that field/area. To do that, we'd ideally want the population of these scholars or, at minimum, a random sample. Concretely, if Acemoglu has, say, 78% of published headline results reproducible under some standardized protocol, is that excellent, mediocre, or terrible? To answer that, you need a reference distribution. That makes a random or otherwise well-defined sample of scholars much more attractive than selecting prominent individuals one by one. (I'll acknowledge that I may just be wrong on #2. Arguing against myself, I do agree that human-driven reproduction/replication work rarely assesses full/representative slices of a field. Instead of assessing one scholar at a time, we assess one paper at a time. Field-wide detective work is becoming more common, but my sense is that it's still the exception rather than the rule.) 3.) Cost/benefit considerations and replication norms: we have very weakly formed norms around reproduction/replication generally speaking. We have basically no developed norms around replicating individual authors one at a time. What this means is that the people who would lead a scholar-by-scholar replication effort will, likely, bear a heavy cost and, potentially, reap limited benefits. On the costs side, focusing on scholars' total bodies of work risks making the replicators look petty, vindictive, and antisocial. Enough of the scientific field is hostile towards replications of individual papers. Imagine what will happen if/when a scholar submits a scholar-specific "take down" of a full body of work. My sense is that it's common enough for scholars having their work replicated to be asked to be a reviewer for those manuscripts. I've seen very hostile responses when one paper is at issue. Imagine what type of reviewer Acemoglu would be for a paper that took on his entire body of empirical work! Even if Acemoglu weren't a reviewer, prolific authors tend to have wide coauthor/friend networks. The rally-around-my-friend dynamic we often see would certainly work against this type of paper being published. Even a completely neutral analysis acquires an accusatory character simply because the sampling unit is a named person. And that creates an unfortunate problem of its own: readers may interpret the choice of scholar as evidence that the investigators expected to find something. On the benefits side, replicating individual scholars' total body of work may offer limited payoffs. What journals would accept this type of scholar-specific replication? I'm not sure the top ones would. Conclusion: Generative AI has enormous potential in assessing and, ultimately, enhancing the robustness of scientific research. Instead of asking questions like, “does this famous individual paper replicate?”, we can begin asking questions like: -“What proportion of published empirical findings in [field X] survive a common robustness protocol?” -“How much of the variation in replicability is attributable to papers, authors, journals, methods, or subfields?” -“Are scholars persistently more or less robust across their work?” -“Can we predict which findings will prove fragile?” I may just be wrong on what I think about a one-at-a-time full body examination of scientific research. If I am, please let me know! I am also happy to chat one-on-one with anyone who is curious to learn more about the early-stage Acemoglu-specific replication project.

• 
  ericleebristol (@iamericbristol) reported 10 minutes ago

  Email scams but they also use a press cloud server that can hold up to millions of emails and send out messages in a bulk but to hundreds of people complicated when it comes to taking down email scams cuz you have to find where they coming from answer in a cloud compressed server that can hold up to millions of emails frequently combine compressed attachments (like ZIP, RAR, 7Z, or TGZ files) with cloud storage or servers to deliver malware, phishing pages, or credential-stealing links while trying to bypass security filters. Common patterns 🚩Malware in compressed attachments: Attackers send emails with ZIP or similar archives containing executables, scripts (VBS/JS), or disguised files. Some use specially crafted or nested ZIPs, password-protected archives (password given in the email body), or less-common formats that email gateways may not fully unpack or scan. Opening/extracting the archive can install remote-access tools, stealers, or ransomware. Cloud storage phishing (“storage is full” or similar alerts): Emails impersonate Google Drive, OneDrive, iCloud, Dropbox, or generic “Cloud Storage” services. They claim storage is full, a payment failed, or files will be deleted, creating urgency. Links often point to real cloud infrastructure (e.g., Google Cloud Storage Azure Blob, or other legitimate buckets) that host redirect pages or fake login/upgrade forms. This makes the links look trustworthy and helps them pass filters🚩.

• 
  Ryan James Girdusky (@RyanGirdusky) reported 11 minutes ago

  @EggerDC The Dropbox was taken down but I’m sure someone downloaded the whole thing.

• 
  Abhishek Singh (@0xlelouch_) reported 15 minutes ago

  System design question. How would you design Dropbox file sync with conflict handling? Constraints to make it real: 1) Clients are offline for days, then reconnect over flaky networks. Upload is resumable and idempotent. 2) Same file edited on 2 devices before either syncs. You need deterministic conflict detection (hash + version vector/etag?) and a UX for duplicates. 3) Renames/moves vs edits: preserve history and avoid treating rename as delete+upload. 4) Large files (2–10GB) need chunking, dedupe, and partial re-upload (content-defined chunking vs fixed). 5) Consistency: per-file ordering vs global ordering. What is the conflict scope and how do you prevent flip-flopping? 6) Server state: metadata store vs blob store, retention for old versions, and how you garbage collect orphaned chunks 7) Security: encryption at rest, per-user keys, and how sharing folders changes trust boundaries

• 
  Lando, the Chef (@_Lando7763) reported 15 minutes ago

  @PhyxicxGaming Thanks. And unfortunately it's even worse than that because it's technically "shared housing;" the place was already a ******** when I got here. No pests, fortunately, and I'm pretty sure the landlord has no idea what goes on here, and doesn't care. I've only ever met the maintenance man, who handles move-ins, plus he picks up rent from the dropbox every week. I haven't seen him since the day I moved in, and he even told me as much that I'll never meet the owner. The psycho has his room on the 3rd floor, I'm one of two on the 2nd floor, and there's one person below me. The bathroom is shared, as is the kitchen, which I never use. Only one burner on the stove works anyway. On my first day, I texted about the broken toilet seat, and the Landlord asked me what happened. WTF? Third-Floor Psycho is the only other person who's walking around raging regularly. Everyone else recognizes the general "peace" of the environment. Unfortunately I have to be here at least a few more months, while I'm still paying off old bills, and re-establishing myself in a new city. It's a slow journey, but a steady one. I just happen to hit a ****** rest stop here and there.

• 
  Ivan Kirigin (@ikirigin) reported 21 minutes ago

  @sethbannon I think I’d agree with the sentiment, and not the assessment. We’re not close to too many startups building weapons. The company with “drone” in the name that has the navy and other defense units as obvious potential customers doesn’t make a trend. If I had to put my finger on what has changed, Palantir and Anduril unlocked the latent interest in the space that matches the historically close connection between Silicon Valley and defense. It was just that the Overton window was locked down by people afraid to talk about what defense really means, and in many cases aren’t even Americans with the opinions. I say this as someone who worked at iRobot in defense before my time in YC, Facebook, Dropbox, and Lyft. Each had lots of people comfortable assuming others will think about and solve the ***** problems.

• 
  Ed Giansante (@edugiansante) reported 23 minutes ago

  86% of small businesses still haven't fully integrated ai into their operations. which is funny, because the tools are already here. they're everywhere. there's probably one open in another browser tab right now, quietly waiting to change your life. Goldman Sachs surveyed small businesses and found that only 14% have fully integrated ai into their operations. i don't think the other 86% are anti-ai. they're busy. they're cautious. and they probably don't want to add “company-wide ai transformation” to the list of things they need to worry about before lunch. honestly, fair. @paulg said something recently that I keep coming back to: "If the world is going to get turned upside down, the safest place to be is in a small, fast-moving company that can easily change direction." small companies should be the ones moving fastest. but most are still waiting for someone else to go first. someone else to test the tool. someone else to write the playbook. someone else to promise that nothing will get weird. @clairevo nailed the real blocker: "the blocker is never tools or intelligence. human systems, human problems." i've spent 15 years watching this happen. At Dropbox. At Wix. At Zynga. Now at Persona. different tools. different eras. same pattern. a team finds a new tool. everyone gets excited. someone schedules a kickoff. three weeks later, everyone is back in the old spreadsheet. not because people are stupid. because changing how people work is uncomfortable. and buying software is much easier than changing behavior. i've seen the same thing with community-led growth. i used to pitch community to executives who had every tool and dashboard money could buy. they'd nod. they'd agree it worked. then they'd return to the comfortable world of automation, sequences, and dashboards that made everyone feel productive. last year, i ran 86 events as a team of one and built $3M in pipeline. the secret was not a magical growth hack. it was showing up. knowing the 15 people in the room by name. listening carefully. creating a space where people could actually trust each other. not exactly the kind of thing you can solve with a 47-step workflow. ai adoption and community adoption have the same problem. the tools work. the ideas work. the uncomfortable human part is where things usually slow down. sitting with your team and figuring out what should change. trying one workflow instead of redesigning the entire company overnight. leading people through something new instead of sending a Loom video and hoping everyone feels inspired. the 86% aren't waiting for better ai. they're waiting for change to feel a little less scary. so start small. pick one annoying workflow. try one new thing. make it 10% better. then do it again. the tools are here. the next step is still a very human conversation. and, unfortunately, probably a meeting.

• 
  Arthur Terrell Vaughn (@ArthurV36405381) reported 26 minutes ago

  @patmendoza6745 I know not of any of those specifications, but I still can’t figure out what the issue is with persistent memory, why can’t I just have a dropbox online that it can constantly access every single chat and conversation?

• 
  Zafar (@zafartalks) reported 27 minutes ago

  @asidorenko_ I understand but sometimes at some point our brain started telling us just make it public. You never know. Let’s not forget Dropbox which layed the foundation for their file sharing competitors. He was solving a problem for himself which turned out to be a successful business.

• 
  M.Ellis (@MEllisPhotograp) reported 31 minutes ago

  @DropboxSupport ive tried mircosoft edge but problem is stil present... do you think i might have been hacked or had bad file ?

• 
  Ed Giansante (@edugiansante) reported 32 minutes ago

  community is not a Slack channel. I've been building communities for 15 years across Zynga, Dropbox, Wix, Persona, and my own project Edublin. And the biggest misconception I still hear is: "we launched a Slack, so we have a community." You don't. Slack, Discord, forums, Circle... those are all tools. Community is what happens when people trust each other enough to be honest. I've seen companies spend six figures on community platforms and end up with a ghost town. I've also seen a group chat of 12 people generate more value than a 10,000 person Slack. The difference is the architecture: who's in the room, how they got there, what the norms are, and whether people feel safe enough to say what they actually think. At Dropbox, we had 400 million users. The "community" wasn't a platform, it was the trust between power users who helped each other solve problems the support docs couldn't. They needed to know they were talking to someone who understood their situation. At Wix, I built an 80K partner community. The platform was secondary. What mattered was that web designers felt seen by a company that historically marketed to DIY users. The community was the signal that Wix took professionals seriously. Edublin started as a blog answering questions for Brazilian expats moving to Ireland, with no dedicated platform or app. It became the largest community of its kind because the trust was real. People showed up because they knew they'd get an honest answer. Community is trust. Community is the reason someone comes back. Every time I evaluate whether a community is working, I ask one thing: would these people show up even if the tool disappeared? If yes, you have something real. If not, you have a group chat.

• 
  AaronAlamary | Parking (@aaron0505) reported 33 minutes ago

  I saved my grandfather's voicemails for years. Birthday wishes. Questions about his computer. Who to call to fix his A/C. Upgraded my iPhone and they were gone. Devastated. Found them today sitting in my Dropbox. SO glad I get to hear him again!

• 
  wigsandtea (@wigsandtea_) reported 34 minutes ago

  Ariana Grande reveals hackers allegedly stole 45 unreleased songs in 2023 alone, including “Fantasize”, “White Tee” and “that b*tch is mine,” in new lawsuit. She also claims they allegedly stole a photographer's Dropbox login details and hacked the phone of one of her producers: “The hackers created a Gmail account and internet domain impersonating the photographer and tricked the technician into sending Grande’s materials to them.” (via @THR)