Dropbox full because of shared folder

• I dont feel like arguing your points since, you strategy of first complaining about how I market MY service and then acknowledging its not mine is pretty wack.

I never once said I was commenting on "your" service. These are the Dropbox forums. We're talking about Dropbox.

• All Ill mention is check the volume of files in your dropbox before saying you dont have that volume of files in your dropbox, because you do, that access to those files is shared with others so you can collaborate on content changes, is a bonus in itself, not something that should also give you additional storage space.

I don't even know what you're trying to say here. If anything, it looks like maybe you're just arguing your same old point about users' "amount of data accessible." I thought I had made it clear, but I'll try again.

"Data access" is not what Dropbox is marketing and promising you when you sign up. They offer users a capacity of storage. You can simply change up the wording to address this by saying that when joining a shared folder, you're getting a copy of those files placed in your own Dropbox.

This, however, is not the case. At no point during the sharing or joining process for these folders is the user alerted to the fact that its contents will count against ALL users' quotas, not just the owner. The only exception to this is when there is more data in the shared folder than the joining user has capacity available.

• I offer you 2 hours of free viewing of our streamed video content, additional to that users can now also share their own videos they upload. And someone shares one with you, and now you want 18 hours for free? HA!

"2 hours of free viewing" is equatable to throughput, not storage capacity. Your example would be relevant if Dropbox accounts had transfer caps. As Dropbox has no such cap, your example is irrelevant.

• As to your complaints, Im a user, Im allowed to think what I like, just as you are, I did due diligence before purchasing this service, and new exactly what I was and was not getting, it was all out there for quick reading, and or sample testing with free accounts. Failure to pay attention cant be blamed on others when it appears to be you who failed to notice.

Really? RTFM? We're not installing Gentoo here. We're synchronizing files with a piece of software that is designed for use by the general public. Such a critical piece of information about how a main feature of the service affects a user's storage quota should be up-front and directly available to the user. They should not have to research or dig around for this information.

• And my elitist comment comes from the number of free users who repeatedly tell everyone how they are leaving and then post over and over, your one of millions, DB make money to survive not by supplying you things over me (which they do do by the way), but by hearing problems I have first.

Dropbox is perfectly free to internally prioritize your feedback over mine. After all, you are contributing to their income directly and I am not. That isn't in question here. At the end of the day, the only differences between the two of us as far as our relationships with Dropbox as a company are concerned, is that you've handed them money. Both of us have entered into an agreement with Dropbox that we will respect the terms of service, in return for said service. Just because someone isn't paying you doesn't suddenly mean you should be able to go back on your agreements with them.

• PS: get of your high horse dude, I didn't come riding on in commenting on your post first. Trolling me got you a reply. If you dont like others opinions then don't mention them in your posts.

(Emphasis mine.) That word, it does not mean what you think it means.

I am here because there is something legitimately wrong, and you are seemingly blind to it. The very fact that this thread even exists is proof enough that there is a fundamental lack of understanding among users about how shared folders affect storage quotas. Since sharing is one of the main features that Dropbox uses to market its service, this should be unacceptable. That you seem to think it's fine is mind-boggling.

• So bye now [...]

Oh, thank goodness. You're leaving. Maybe now the actual complaints about this actual problem can be heard.

• [...] just one thing [...]

Oh for f--...

• [...] go look up what troll means, and then examine your post for similarities. I think you will be surprised (actually that's sarcasm, I doubt you would get it).

Your attempt at having the last word would have gone better had you actually taken your own advice and looked up the definition. Let me Google that for you. http://lmgtfy.com/?q=define:trolling

1. "make a deliberately offensive or provocative online posting with the aim of upsetting someone or eliciting an angry response from them."

My aim was to point out that there's a very real problem here, which I'll state explicitly again for the record: At no point during the process of sharing or joining a folder is any user made aware that the use of shared folders, one of the main features of the Dropbox platform, comes at the cost of storage capacity.

The only other task I had hoped to accomplish was to make you understand that your reasoning--indeed, your entire argument--is flawed. "Access to data," or however you word it, is not what Dropbox touts as a feature; they market storage capacity. To promise users a capacity of storage only to turn around an take some of it away without alerting the user is underhanded and deceitful.

• :-)

Being oblivious to how ignorant and conceited you make yourself look must be great. Prove me wrong by either acknowledging or rebutting my arguments (the two I've reiterated, in bold, above). Your refusal to do so does not magically make me a troll.

In that case, I would ask you to stay on topic. Obviously, Steve is leaving because of the problem I've outlined very clearly, and which the bulk of the other users in this thread have experienced first-hand.

You are very much allowed to reply in order to bid him goodbye; these are, after all, public forums and I'm sure the mods have no problem with that. However, your post contains nothing that actually adds to this discussion. In fact, it reads to me as if you're looking down and laughing at this person who came here only to cast in his opinion that the issue at hand is real, and that Dropbox will be losing a user because of it.

You've gone on for several posts now since I presented my argument as to why, exactly, this business of taking users' promised space without alerting them is a problem. Your excuse is that it would be a rehash? Since my points are in response to the ones you'd be rehashing, they are ultimately insufficient anyway.

I'll admit, I've been a bit emotional writing a few of these posts, and I can become a bit antagonizing when that happens, but never has that been my goal. If you want my contributions here to be devoid of emotional influence, so be it. To clarify: I am asking for a clear, concise counter-argument to the statements in bold from my previous post. You have yet in this thread to provide such argument, and my previous posts outline exactly why.

You are rehashing explanation of the mechanism, clear, explained before, explained in the Help Center note I linked.

I am commenting on what I consider to be unethical marketing practices. To repeat: at no point I was made aware that the use of shared folders comes at the cost of storage capacity. My guess: majority of Dropbox users are not aware of that (again, this is me guessing, no reliable data exists). Any comments on that? No, I do not think so ;>

Here's the usual situation with me and Dropbox.   I'm a VFX artist. I primarily have to use Dropbox for clients who arent smart enough to realize it's a terrible solution for shared cloud storage.

Client A, pays for business dropbox (I assume, has tons of space). I have no interest in having any of their files SYNCED to my devices, though access to download them (once) is needed.  I have a personal dropbox account. they share folders to me to download stuff only. I then upload files to THEIR storage which again, I already have on my drive locally and have no interest in SYNCING to my devices or anything. I just need to use their storage to upload/download.  

Client A assumes that when they share a folder with me, I can use it. Reasonable assumption.

They share a folder, I'm all of a suddon waaaay past my quota (12TB shared folder) and cant send them my work.

And then we go back to FTP.

Every. gorram. time.

I'd like to remind everyone that Dropbox did not always do this. Up until a few years ago shared folders did NOT count against your quota, and everything was wonderful.

Giving me access to a 200TB shared folder shouldnt force me to pay for anything more, since that space on Dropbox's servers has already been paid for by the person who bought the space to begin with.  This is Dropbox's way of double (or triple, quadruple) dipping on payment for used space.  The space taken up on my device costs dropbox nothing, only the server-side stuff does, and as we know, giving someone write access to an existing drive costs them nothing more.  (Aside from bandwidth I suppose, so Id be willing to pay the electric on handling my bandwidth...)

It is utterly unacceptable to expect every artist on a project (there may be 20 of us) to pay for the same space that has already been paid for by the client.  Sure if we want to "Own" that folder too, it'd make sense. But we need a way to choose to NOT own it.  Until that happens Dropbox is not an option for any of my work.

Hi Dave,

Oh, so it became personal... how sad. I definitely did not try to "yell down anyone that says anything different". If this is how you perceived my comments, please accept my apologies. I still believe that you failed to address my point, but I also believe that it became of little interest to the readers (if indeed there are any left). So here we are... we just have different opinions. Happens in life rather often, I would say.

I do believe that Dropbox is hiding certain aspects from view of less technically advanced users (thus: majority), and I do consider this to be unethical marketing technique. Of course it is their show, they do whatever they thing is best for them. I do nor require any examples or "rehashing" of technical explanation -- I am advanced user. I leave it for others to comments, and/or continue. If nobody is interested any longer.... well, I just leave this thread to fizzle out peacefully.

Have a great day, Derek.

wow .... Nice thread. It's helped me a lot to understand the Dropbox Business Model. 

Let me try to have some points here ..

#1 The problem is for Paid user. Because they thought that they are paying for 1 TB space (example).. but actually they are paying for 1 TB content, which may be or may not be useful for them.

#2 Above point should be clearly mentioned in the DB main page. Wrong marketing. Sorry I am not a paid customer else I can ask them to pay my money back. :(

#3 Now, what DB can do to solve this issue keeping current Business Model. Provide a option to Sync All or do selective sync on file basis (not on folder basis). I can see all file names whenever anyone share some chunk of data, but I can have option for selective sync the file, which will consume my space or say my Quota. 

#4 - another option which can solve remaining problem - We should also have control on what type of permission me want. Just read or Read+write. If I opt read permission - No consumption of my personal  Quota but if I choose R+W, then it consume my Quota also.

So in short,

If Dropbox wants to play long term in Cloud base service .. then They have to think in this way also. #3 and #4 are best features which they can provide. 

Anyone who think these are not the best Idea? I am curious to hear from someone who is So called very fascinate about the DB business model. #3 and #4 make sense or not ?

Mark Mc, Ben L:

Ben - well said. I was going to use the analogy of Dacia charging extra because you want to take some passengers, but I think yours is better.

Mark: As has been said many times in this thread, it's not that Drop Box is not allowed to do this - it's their business. However, this is not a good business model. It is disingenuous and illogical - it just doesn't work the way you would expect it to, and the only 'fix' is to buy more space - a fix that only works until enough people share THEIR data with you, and you have to pay again and again to keep using the service.

The model all other cloud services I know of, where you pay for space and you can share it with others, but they don't have to pay for that privilege is transparent, and obvious.

I'll keep my free 5GB for when someone wants to share with me, but with this business model there is absolutely no chance that I'd pay for 'an upgrade'. I'll spend my money where the T's & C's are clear and obvious and I don't get ripped off! 

@AlexG

You are correct that DB's costs include more than storage costs - they also include connectivity costs.

However, when you stated the following was not true:

But this is not how they charge for the service - DB charges by space, not by access or downloads.

You were wrong. DB only charges its customers  for space - it does not charge for connectivity. Try downloading a big file loads of times and see if you get charged more. You won't.

It is also true that, until October last year, Db did not own their own network for data storage and connectivity - it was all provided by Amazon. This changed last October when they switched to their own storage network, after a two year project to design and build their own network.

See this blog post for details: https://blogs.dropbox.com/tech/2016/03/magic-pocket-infrastructure/

Their charging structure is older than that though, so the sob story about all their expensive networking kit doesn't really apply, because for most of DB's life they've not needed to buy much of this.

Even their own service is not consistent with this view. You can share a file, even from a free account, that can be downloaded by anyone, with or without an account, as often as they like.

For example, I just added NOOBs V1.8 (for the Raspberry Pi) to my account. It weighs in at just over 1GB. Anyone can download it for free, even if they are not a DB customer.

It's a little ironic - uploads to most services that charge for bandwidth are free, while downloads cost. Yet, with DB, being able to upload to someone else's shared space costs you, but anyone can download as much as they like for free. How does that make sense?

@Mark Mc

No, I mean successful, mainstream, popular services like Google Drive and Microsoft Onedrive. There, you can share as much as you like, and storage space is charged for once, by the owner of the folder. 

Incidentally, many are cheaper than DB. Office 365 Family for example gives 5 people 1 TB space each, and the latest Microsoft Office, all for less than the cost of 1TB from DB.

For a company that is presumably interested in leveraging the positive aspects of their service to win customers off of competitors like Google and Microsoft, it's a pretty bad look to have a customer-hostile "feature" like this, and a really bad look to have people who bring it up get berated by angry fans who only care about defending the product rather than helping anyone out or offering reasonable feedback. Other cloud storage companies don't do this because brazenly charging multiple customers after providing a service once comes off as greedy and deceptive to your customer base.