You might see that the Dropbox Community team have been busy working on some major updates to the Community itself! So, here is some info on what’s changed, what’s staying the same and what you can expect from the Dropbox Community overall.
Forum Discussion
Dropbox full because of shared folder
Hi, i have a dropbox account and the free space that i have is full because of the files inside the shared folder that i have with some friends.
Is there a way to avoid that the shared folder that ...
Your English is very good Michele - well done!
And no, if you need read write access to that folder if will use your quota. If you just need read only access leave the share and ask the other person sends you a read only Shared link.
You can LEAVE and REJOIN a shared folder when ever you like.
So one method of getting space is to LEAVE the shared folder. And REJOIN it when you need it.
If you ONLY need some files from the shared folder and ONLY at some times, I would additionally ask the owner of the shared folder for a LINK to it, in that way you can use the link to it and download via web the files you need when you need them.
Although I don't agree with Dropbox, and this is the primary reason I won't spring for Pro, I understand why they did this.
It's simple, really. Say, someone creates 10 free accounts. 10 x 2GB = 20GB. Now, that person, from each account shares a folder with his main account. That person just got more, free, space.
@Rich R
Also not true. Storage is cheap, bandwidth, which you mentioned, is not, and this is where the majority of the costs are incurred. The more data you transfer, the more it costs Dropbox, and you, as a Basic user, pay nothing towards that usage.
In that case, their charging model makes even less sense.
Just about every other charging model I've come across that charges for bandwidth, charges for downloads, not up loads. Uploads happen once, downloads can happen many times.
I have a free account with 5GB storage. As I mentioned above in a previous post, I have an ISO image of a linux build for the Raspberry Pi in my space. It's over 1GB in size. I've shared a link to that image.
Anyone can download that image as often as they like (even if I had a paid for account - the account type is not the point here). So, if I had been paying, I'd have effectively paid for a single upload of that file, but any number of downloads would be free.
If the cost of bandwidth is the reason behind this charging model, it is still implemented in a bizarre, counter-intuitive way which is easy to abuse for those who want to, but a real nuisance to legitimate users who just want to share some files.
In @Ben S's case above, even if he had paid nearly £100/year for the 1 TB account (and not uploaded anything so he could have lots of space to upload to other accounts) he'd still have to upgrade to the £132/year account just so he could upload to this one account.
Your alternative, of shared links and file requests may work, but it is clunky and counter intuitive.
It also breaks the charging model again, because the upload still has to be made (costing DB whatever it costs them) yet no additional payment is received for the use of that bandwidth.
It boils down to this: DB charge by storage space, but then make the way accounts are used difficult because of their bandwidth costs. This leads to a counter-intuitive and essentially unfair charging model that is either expensive or cumbersome (if worked around) for many users, while still allowing for activities that cost them money but cannot charge for.
How does that make sense?
It's a shame, because otherwise, DB is a useful service. But it is going to hurt its long term prospects when its competitors (like Google Drive, OneDrive etc) offer a much more transparent, cheaper and easy to use service.
