Dropbox for Business
dropboxatwork.comDropBox really shines when it comes to the capabilities of their client. I installed Box from few months ago at work, and used it to share a few screencasts that I was working on > 200MBs per file about 10 files. I got home and fired up the home machine...For the next five minutes the internet connection was jammed. Turns out you cannot do a selective sync of only certain folders. This would be a very basic use case in my opinion but is not supported by Box.
So, for all those whinging about the price...it is not really that bad.
I agree that the killer feature with Dropbox is that it "just works". I jumped on the 50GB Mac mobile app special from Box.net a few months ago and upon trying to use their Box Sync desktop client I found that it just doesn't work. Bogged the machine down, was never able to properly sync files. I've got 50GB at Box.net that I don't know what to do with and I definitely wasn't moved to the category of a prospective consumer client.
It really frustrates me that there are separate clients that do the same thing, but talk to a different domain. If these companies cared about their customers they would be putting together an open source spec for cloud syncing so that we could just pick our favorite clients and tie them to the individual accounts.
Not going to happen. Part of the reason is just what you mentioned: they care about their customers. With various clients they would have to support the problems coming from all of the clients and that would cause their service to look bad even though the problem lies within client app.
You are really fluent in newspeak aren't you.
That's a crazy weak argument. I'm sure glad JPEG's aren't limited to only work with apps created by JPEG Inc. Dropbox's new image app would be pretty worthless if every company was as insistent about keeping things proprietary.
That's basically S3 actually.
That would be in conflict with a freemium model. People would make a client that ties together dozens of free accounts.
I might be alone here, but I actually really prefer Box to Dropbox even though I do not use the desktop sync tool very often (though I've tried it). I'm sure the free 50GB I've gotten skews my opinion. For a college student like me on the kind of budget I have, knowing 50GB from Box will never go away versus getting maybe 10GB for free only temporarily at Dropbox makes a big difference. It's useful to have that kind of space for school, work, or just family sharing.
FWIW, I've never really had any issues with it being bogged down even when using the desktop sync tool. So your mileage probably will vary.
I'm upto 18.9gb permanently free on my Dropbox account. They periodically do promotions that give you permanent space. After using Dropbox for 5-6 years I'm still only using 62% of that space. For just storing documents, code and the odd file I'm sharing with people I've had no issue with the space available.
Last year there was the 'great space race' where they were promoting to students, I think I got 8gb for that. (https://www.dropbox.com/help/390/en)
Before that there was a beta for testing out their new photo system. Which gave a max of 5gb free. (It appears this is still available to give you upto 3gb https://www.dropbox.com/help/287/en)
Unless they drop the price soon we're going to move away from them. It sounds silly to argue over $15/user/month, but in comparison to Google Drive it's just started feeling too expensive.
I really like the product, but I don't know if any product in a commoditized space can sustain such a price premium.
Well, it's $15/user for unlimited storage. Google Apps is $5/user for 30GB for each user, and then you have to start buying additional storage with "licenses"[1] which brings the price a little closer to Dropbox if you have a lot of data. I only use a Google Apps account so I don't know how well the clients work with multiple accounts (private Gmail and Apps). Maybe Dropbox will handle it better?
Obviously, Google Apps gives you much more than just Google Drive so the comparison will greatly depend on what other services you need/use, what your employees and contractors already know, and whether you have Linux clients since Goolge Drive still doesn't support Linux.
> Google Apps is $5/user for 30GB for each user
I'd be willing to wager that someone at Google has figured out that 30GB/user covers > N% of users, where N ~ 80-90. This makes Drive more attractive than Dropbox for that N%.
I believe Google pools the storage. Office 365 does the same thing. My org manages many thousands of people each with 10GB of OneDrive space.
We allocate big users as much as 200GB of space without even looking at the allocation ,because most user needs are very light.
Google does not currently pool the storage, but will move to that model in coming quarters.
How do you know this. Have they announced pooled storage?
I think they have the capability already and offer it as a carrot if you're a O365 customer or serious prospect.
for unlimited storage
In the real world you have netowrk congestion and security costs that scall with "unlimited" in this context.
so its more about practical needs.
Remember that Google Drive doesn't have official Linux support nor a Linux cli only client. Dropbox has both. This is very handy if you have any servers, some developers etc.
Dropbox for Business also includes their unlimited backups (older versions of files).
> unlimited backups (older versions of files).
Versions are not backups. I wish I could find a simple web page that I read quite a few years ago. It very starkly explained why some things are commonly confused with, but just are not, backups. The consequences of those confusions are usually bad.
So, to all intents and purposes versions appear to act as backups, but you read a Web site a few years ago that said they aren't so that's what you tell people?
Not really. The concept of version works like backup for full fledge systems (SVN, git), but not what Dropbox exposes.
Dropbox keeps version of _existing_ files. You won't get back the files deleted and synched by mistake/misbehavior of some script. A backup would keep the files.
You'll also have different behaviors if you need to bring back a set of data (i.e. all your files as they were two days ago). You'll be in pain to do it file by file with Dropbox's version system.
A colleague of mine always says that you don't have a backup if a single nuke* can take everything away. So even with soft deletion, versioning in itself would not be a backup solution. OTOH, I'd bet Dropbox has distributed backups.
* An exaggeration for natural disasters, wars, lock-downs, fires and so on.
Dropbox keeps the history of deleted files just like modified files. Take a look on the web interface and hit the "Show deleted files" trashcan in the icons at the top.
Or for a different view, hit the "Events" link on the left navbar.
> Dropbox keeps version of _existing_ files. You won't get back the files deleted and synched by mistake/misbehavior of some script
Err, that is exactly what they provide. You do have to use the web interface to see them, and it is trivial to restore directories and files. (A bit painful if you want to only restore some of the files in a directory.)
Thanks for the correction.
Before posting I actually deleted a file and went to the web interface to check but couldn't find anything looking like that feature. I know they basically have a git like file management, but thought they just didn't expose past deleted files (clicking on the events timeline just moves to the folder the file belonged without any further information).
For anyone making the same mistake, the trashcan left to the search box in the action bar, it's not to delete stuff, like it does in the OSX Finder bar. It's to show past deleted files in the current folder (they then appear grayed out in the listing).
Fairly OT, but even knowing what the icon does, the is a thrill going to my spine when clicking this trash icon. But to be fair, the image is not wrong, it's just the habit of the OSX Finder.
BTW they keep old/deleted versions of files for 30 days for all users, and indefinitely for business plans. It also doesn't count against the quota.
Description and video showing accessing old files is at https://www.dropbox.com/help/113/en
Fair enough. Thank you for the explanation.
We tried to move to Google Drive but are about to go all in for Dropbox for Business. The Google Drive desktop sync client (for Mac at least) is just not reliable enough. Make sure you trial Google Drive first.
The Google Drive sync client is lacking features for business. But third party Google Drive sync clients like Syncdocs http://syncdocs.com make it better than Dropbox.
Not features; reliability. We have fairly modest Enterprise® requirements, but we do shunt around medium-size files quite often and expect them to be synchronized around the office as well as Dropbox manages it.
For Dropbox, it is their core business. For Google, it's a drop in their massive bucket of cash that comes from advertising. If business reliability matters to you, Dropbox seems comparatively better.
> If business reliability matters to you, Dropbox seems comparatively better.
If you're comparing Drive to the Reader fiasco, keep in mind that Drive for business is a paid offering.
But so is google apps no?
Yes, and google apps for business continues to exist...
No, the free version of Google Apps was not a paid offering. The paid version is, and is still going strong.
I dont think it is fair to equate the fact that Google Drive is less reliable than Dropbox, just based on the fact that Google has more irons in the fire compared to Dropbox. They also have orders of magnitude more employees and resources than Dropbox.
I think there are two kinds of "reliability" getting conflated here. There's reliability as in "this is built on the stable foundation of a big system and has a bunch of engineers ensuring it's Highly Available" -- both Google and Dropbox can give you that. Then there's reliability as in "this product won't blow away in the corporate-political wind" -- and Dropbox is the only one who can truly say that. (Though Google Drive is pretty core to a lot of stuff Google does, e.g. Android, so it's probably not going anywhere either.)
On the other hand, Dropbox is a one-trick pony, providing a service that is easily replicable and becoming increasingly commoditized.
Dropbox don't even own the hardware they store your files on.
Google own the data centre, the hardware, in many cases the device (Android devices, Chromebooks, Chromecast, Google TV etc.) you use to access their services, and increasingly (with Google Fiber) the connection between you and them.
You really think Google would drop Google Apps for Business and Google Drive? That is really illogical. It's the future, they're not going to drop it.
Dropbox is more likely to go under before Google Drive does.
It sounds more like cost-plus pricing rather than value-based pricing. At the same time, it makes sense for Dropbox to go on the higher end of the pricing spectrum and drop it if things don't go as well as hoped since it's much easier to drop price than ever to raise.
How sure are you that Dropbox is more reliable than Google Drive? As sure as you are that Google Drive is just a drop in the bucket for Google?
If their business is dependent on charging significantly more than the competition then I disagree that it is reliable.
They already lost me. I had just recently upgraded to their $9/mo 100GB plan and was happy as could be. Then Google dropped their prices and suddenly that same $9 could buy me an entire TB, which allows me to do/store way more. I didn't even hesitate to switch, although I'd much rather be paying Dropbox than Google. If they ever make a similar price drop I'll switch back.
Shameless plug: http://www.nubisio.com. Our pricing is capacity based, so you can have as many users as you want, and our product (CloudStorm) supports all major cloud providers.
Dropbox has a scaling problem.
Not from a technical point of view but from a usage point of view especially when we talk enterprise.
Dropbox is great for small teams or personal accounts. As long as there are very few owners of the files stored there.
The problems starts to arise when larger groups of people use it as a place to store files. At that point it basically looses it's value namely because its no longer possible to find what you need simply by going to dropbox.
Instead what you now have to do is to find a given person working on a given project and then ask them where they put their files.
Dropbox will have to solve this problem either by adding some sort of history trail or by providing a better contextual search algorithm (files that James Jameson worked on in 2013 on project X)
From what I have seen in that area they are currently solving the wrong problems (again from a usage point of view)
This is just a new version of the network share that many companies have had in place for years. The standard computer setup at a company might include for example a T: drive where all employees are told to store their files. Usually this was intended as a way to allow collaboration on documents, as well as IT not having to backup individual computers. The network share will usually have various levels of organization depending on who is working in any particular folders. Not saying it isn't a problem that could use solving, but it's not new to Dropbox.
Oh I agree completely. My point was exactly that they didn't solve this problem and that I think it's worth solving. Otherwise it doesn't "deserve" to be in the enterprise world IMHO.
Dropbox even have most of the necessary meta data and have the potential to solve it via their large app install base.
We used dropbox at my prior company, we are now using box. Not sure if it's just because I'm not used to box, or if I'm biased since I use dropbox for personal storage too, but I really wish we used dropbox instead of box. I find the UI + integration way better on dropbox.
I understand that nobody likes a race towards the bottom with regard to pricing, but IMO Dropbox is playing their pricing a little over confidently right now given what competitors are offering.
In both the comments on HN and the original thread pricing keeps coming up.
And the response is that this is a great product and pricing is acceptable.
I don't think so.
Businesses switching costs are MUCH higher than consumer.
EG to switch a business service lots of co's have to incorporate multiple stakeholders, decision makers, etc.
Which is why VC's pour buckets of money into proven SAAS models around business services - because businesses stick almost no matter what!
So is DropBox's pricing scheme out of line with their potential to grown more quickly?
In my experience from the consumer perspective I am actively seeking alternatives to DropBox due to their current pricing.
I was an average 100GB user very happy with the product for years.
Then I had kids.
And BOOM I have a million pictures, videos, etc that are PRICELESS to me.
And now I'm on a $600/year plan for 500 GB / mo.
And Google drive is now offering 2x as much storage as that for $10/month.
So 20% of the cost for twice as much.
I gotta say it is very compelling and I can't believe that the GOOG product a few iterations out isn't a direct comparable.
Dropbox's pricing is making this very loyal consumer unhappy, and seems like especially WRT to handling business users they should be aggressively pricing to own the market.
> I was an average 100GB user very happy with the product for years. Then I had kids. And BOOM I have a million pictures, videos, etc that are PRICELESS to me.
That sounds more like you need a backup service than a sync-things-conveniently-to-all-your-computers service.
You wouldn't expect a convenience store chain to be competitive in the market Costco operates in; they're two different kinds of business, serving two different kinds of needs. Convenience stores can get away with charging a lot more for e.g. soda than Costco, because Costco won't sell you exactly one bottle of soda.
Just as well, you shouldn't expect Dropbox to be competitive in the consumer digital archival storage market. (Though they could certainly branch out there, it's currently just not the market they serve.)
> In both the comments on HN and the original thread pricing keeps coming up.
OTOH, the cost of a new MacBook Pro always comes up when looking to buy a new laptop, but that hasn't hurt Apple at all.
There is a benefit to the business if they can keep the price high by staying the market leader. If they lower their prices to compete the type of problems they will have to deal with in inherently different.
This is pretty interesting. I was just looking for executive summaries and I just found this Box[1] example which beings with a pretty hard hitting opener.
> Would you use your personal email account to message important customers?
> Would you make lengthy personal phone calls from your work phone? If not, then
> why would you use your personal Dropbox account to store critical business
> information?
[1] - http://www.rochester.edu/it/box/assets/pdf/migratedropbox
The Box/Dropbox comparisons here ignore the collaboration layer and its value. Dropbox is hands down the best when you want a folder that syncs; it just doesn't save you much time in a business context when used that way. Cloud storage is just the first layer of value.
If you're thinking in terms of cost per gigabyte, you're missing the point for the audience this is aimed at. If you're thinking "how can this replace email threads" and solve business issues (like employees getting fired and files not being migrated), that's way better as a comparison.
Seems like that depth is 1-2 years out for Dropbox and ...well, not sure for Google Drive and their roadmap for business.
give users one Dropbox for personal stuff and another for work stuff. Users can easily access both Dropboxes from any of their devices.
Sounds awesome!
Minimum 5 users
Well, phooey. This seems...arbitrary. Do they enforce this limit just to reduce support queries from low-profit customers?
> Do they enforce this limit just to reduce support queries from low-profit customers?
Almost certainly. To quote patio11: "Pathological customers: they get things for free and then ask for their money back." The more money a business has, the more professional it can afford to be (literally) in dealing with you. If you want 80% of the money with 20% of the effort, draw a line between the head of your profit distribution, and the long tail of pathological customers who think they're owed support because they pay $coffee per month, and then keep raising your rates until everyone in that long tail leaves.
Though there's also the fact that for ≤ 5 people, using your personal Dropboxes and having a Shared Folder for your business works just fine.
I totally understand the reasoning.
Re: personal + shared folder, that starts to get a little messy when you're sharing folders/joining shared folders with outside people. Doable, but messy. Another option is one account for the business, with e.g. 2 people logged into it. I do this, plus a hacky workaround to also have a personal account logged in on my laptop.
The unlimited storage is a pretty smart play. It makes it much harder to compare this head-to-head with Google Drive.
While they talk about "unlimited" storage, it's actually set to 1,000 GB: all the quotas throughout the UI are set at 1,000 GB, and you have to contact them if and when you want to go over that amount (they do mention this stipulation on the features page[1]).
I've gotten close (~850 GB), but never over so I'm not sure if it's a "no-questions-asked, 1,000-GB-is-just-a-sanity-check" type of conversation, or if they start to get more hands-on and want a really good reason for going over.
I'm fairly certain they'll double it or more the minute you ask them, maybe a couple of times before scrutinising it. Posterous had the same thing btw, with a limit of 3 blogs, and they increased my limit in a few hours.
I've implemented the same kind of workaround, and for two reasons.
It's actually a lot easier technically. I mean DB already has a limit for free users, so all they have to do is rev up the limit and all their clients "just work". They don't have to add magic if-then logic to change how clients show and enforce the limit.
Secondly, it prevents a disaster scenario where some script - either malicious or accidental - smashes your monthly quota with 1s an 0s. Yeah you could try to rate-limit it or something, but it's just easier to prevent the whole scenario by changing a database column.
It might be similar to the discussion a few days ago regarding tarsnap. Like, unlimited, but if you're using more than 1 TB, they start asking why you need that much space.
They increased mine to 2TB, no questions asked.
I don't make software service purchasing decisions for any companies, but I am always irritated by claims of "unlimited" for things that are very obviously not unlimited. "Unlimited vacation days," "unlimited cell phone data," "unlimited storage space," etc. all seem to me to be precisely what you said they are: ways of obfuscating the limits. You're not going to keep paying me if I take a 2 year vacation, and you're going to cut me off pretty quickly if I start piping /dev/random into Dropbox.
Was anyone else hoping for reduced pricing? Neat features for businesses, but with recent price drops by Amazon and Google I was expecting Dropbox to follow.
Hoping? Yes. Expected? No. Dropbox never seems to compete on price. They've had the same pricing/storage options basically since they were founded many years ago.
In fact, this business offering is a 44% price increase compared to the previous Dropbox Team offer (which used to be $125/user/year), for a slightly smaller feature set.
I am a big fan of Dropbox. I have tried other cloud storage/sync providers at various points of time and had a sour experience - Box: couldn't figure out how to sync, SkyDrive/OneDrive: refused to sync, Google Drive: was so slow that I tried to speed it up by copying over existing data from another machine and it created two copies of everything! In over 3 years I haven't faced a single problem with Dropbox.
Selling to the enterprise is a very different thing though. Quality comes way down in their priority list. The bureaucratic strongholds in enterprises require compromised quality at every level in order to maintain their fiefdom. I know Dropbox needs to make more money, but maybe this is not the right direction in which to probe?
Does $180/user/year seem excessively high to anyone else?
As a business expense it seems like a no-brainer, especially with features oriented around security like remote wiping, account transferring and more detailed logs.
Agree. The features you mentioned above, along with an awesome revision history tracking feature, make it an easy decision.
As a business expense for a 50+ person company, that's over $9000 a year. That doesn't seem like a no-brainer, especially when Google will give me Apps (including Drive) for $50/year/person.
We pay for Google Apps for everyone in our company, and unfortunately no one used Google Apps. I know some people pay and expense Dropbox on their personal accounts, and if more of our team needed to use Dropbox I can easily see getting on their Business plan. Plus the Business plan ends up costing less than the consumer version.
The couple of thousand dollars is fairly trivial amount of money - you need to look at price per headcount. Salesforce and other SAAS services that we use cost a lot more per person and yet we still happily pay for them. I can also see a simple feature like 'Track logins, devices, and locations ' being a must have depending on the security requirements internally.
A 50+ person company is burning >$5,000,000 on salary + benefits + office space.
Yes, but for $9000/year, I could very easily stand up a server, backups, and a VPN to access more than 1TB of data.
Except the remote wipe doesn't work if the employee disconnects their computer from the internet.
Well, sure. It can't violate the laws of physics, what a shame.
No, not at all. $180/user/year = $15/user/month.
In comparison, Salesforce Sales Cloud starts at $25/user/month, and Box for Business starts at $15/user/month.
In addition to everyone else's comments on pricing, it's $125/user/year if you pay annually (additional users after the first 5 users, which are $795/year).
Seems comparable to Box's pricing.
Oh, I didn't see that. Upvoted.
For business use it is probably one of the cheapest "serious" SaaS price levels I have seen (e.g. go and have a look at what Salesforce charge per user per month).
not in the slightest.
It's a 44% raise from the previous "Dropbox Team" business pricing. It used to be $125/user/year.
So AWS S3 does a big price drop, and Dropbox Business raises prices by 44%. Sounds good :)
It is still $125/user/year if you pay annually. It is $15/user/month if you pay monthly.
Sync and share is commodity. The trick is to add value and create APIs that unlock the value of having all your data in the cloud. Right now, the whole space is just a big land grab with many entrants and many different strategies. My money is on Box. They have realized that the dollars are in enterprise and that enterprise customers have a few needs around security and control that frankly noone else can offer.
The chatting while editing feature is great. This is something that has been missing versus Google Drive. The added benefit of using existing apps is very nice since you can be working on files that Drive does not support. Will have to take a look at this. Price wise though, it is a little high.
Hmmm, I already had two dropboxes running on my computer (one personal and one business) using Dropbox Encore and I have my work Dropbox (much bigger than personal Dropbox) to sync to another folder on my regular hard drive -- personal syncs to my smaller SSD. Linking my accounts (which obviates the need for Dropbox Encore) seems to want to create a new Dropbox folder to download all my work things and not give me a choice of where to put it AND automatically change the name of my personal dropbox folder, which is a shame as I have some local scripts using that run it. Any chance of an "advanced setup" where we can pick which accounts sync where with no need to automatically rename folders that already exist on my hard drive?
Seems like symlinks could solve your problem in the mean time.
yeah, that's how I eventually worked around it...
Why use this when there are options like bitcasa - 1TB at $10/month?
Another plus is they offer a real external drive that doesnt duplicate data.
https://www.bitcasa.com/pricing
Disclosure: I am a happy bitcasa customer.
Mediafire has just announced yesterday 1 TB for $5 a month:
http://www.androidcentral.com/mediafires-new-cloud-storage-p...
> Why use this when there are options like bitcasa - 1TB at $10/month?
Name brand recognition. Same reason why Tide detergent still exists when others are around half as expensive.
> Same reason why Tide detergent still exists when others are around half as expensive.
Tide does not "subsist on brand recognition".
"Tide is a perennial powerhouse in Consumer Reports' laundry detergent Ratings." [1] (although as of 2013, other brands are catching up in quality)
[1]http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/news/2013/06/wisk-kirklan...
Consumer Reports ratings are not double-blinded studies; I wouldn't be surprised if there was a correlation between product price and satisfaction ratings without blinding.
Exactly. They are not unbiased.
They are awful with cars. If it's a Honda or Toyota, it's awesome, period. They'll list negatives like "road noise" or poor OEM tire choices.
I own two Hondas, one a 2006 Odyssey minivan -- it's a decent car. If you know anyone who owns a 2005-2010 model of this car, ask them about trouble with the sliding power door. I betcha 5/10 times, they'll start spewing about a ridiculous $500-800 repair to replace a broken door hinge, because of a defective $0.50 plastic wheel that breaks.
When I read my CR review back in 2009/2010, not a single mention of this issue.
And apparently they support linux. I mighty actually switch to them from gdrive.
One of the most important features to the company I work for is being able to share sub-folders within a shared folder. Without it, you have to completely give up hierarchical organization of your data.
This feature is still missing as far as I can tell.
Does dropbox allow others to upload to specific folders within your account? Can I create a folder for each client then send a link that will allow them to upload documents to their folder?
> Can I create a folder for each client then send a link that will allow them to upload documents to their folder?
Yes, as long as they have their own Dropbox account (free version's fine for this purpose). You can otherwise share read-only access to folders with anyone.
Yeah, but for write access you have to add everyone to the folder, which is unfortunate.
With Google Drive, you can give write access with just a link.
Recently, my organization did an open feedback forum. We wanted everyone to be able to add comments via DropBox, but their was no easy way to add a random list of 50+ people. Ended up switching to Google Driver as a result.
I've used Citrix ShareFile for this purpose, and it works wonderfully. Great thing is that they "brand" it for your company.
Worth checking out.
I lost trust in Dropbox when it comes to the quality of their client and I would therefore not use it for business purposes.
* I've had two instances of near data loss where I could only recover data from the local hidden cache folder that gets deleted after a week. It had to do with a user error with moving out files from the Dropbox directory when the client was off - previous versions in the webapp can easily become corrupted this way.
* the Mac client is a total CPU hog since Mountain Lion.
The business account comes with unlimited history of deleted/modified files, so you can recover anything that once was on Dropbox.
On my Macbook Pro, the "average battery impact" (last 8 hours) as reported by Activity Monitor is 1.2 (not sure what's the unit, but it's a low value compared to other apps), and we use it daily for work so it's kind of active the whole day. I wouldn't call it a CPU hog by far.
1) That's good to hear about unlimited history - however that wasn't the issue in my case - the files either didn't show up in in the history anymore, even though it clearly wasn't past the grace period, or the showed up and reported an error when trying to open them. So the last I checked, there were non recoverable states in Dropbox and I therefore would never trust it as the only backup (and neither should you).
2) The CPU hog thing is very inconsistent - it probably doesn't affect all OS version/hardware combinations or they would have solved it since long ago. All I know is that I regularly see the client go to 80-100% usage of one core for a rather long time, meanwhile taking forever to sync just a few files - which clearly shouldn't happen in an application that mostly does IO. There are probably certain file types it has some problems with, but I didn't have the patience to analyze it yet, I simply switched to SpiderOak.
So no, I just can't trust their code quality.
It's not just their Mac one. The one on Windows for me kills it, it just seems to make the machine really slow (only whilst it is syncing). Seems as if it is a bit of "the nature of the beast" as it's a similar story with other desktop clients. Great apps otherwise!
A lot depends on how many files you are syncing, and how often these files change and need re-syncing.
It's all very nice, but there's a very large elephant conspicuously absent from the room: encryption.
Not present in any of the 114 comments here so far, either.
Might be a problem.
Did anyone read the comments by the owner of DMS? It's such a funny thing to see a legal/offer exchange in comments. I'd love to know the background of that discussion.
>$795 / year for a 5-user team. Additional users are $125 / user / year.
I love dropbox for personal use. But hey! ever heard of Google Drive and know their pricing?
Finally they have a free trial available
Previously if you had to develop against Dropbox business features like SSO you had to shell out $$$
I wonder how the collaboration inside of applications works. Is there going to be a new API for integration?
Since dropbox knows which files are being worked on, I don't actually think it needs to be inside of the application, it could just as well be a standalone overlay. The "sneek peak" screenshot does indeed look like an overlay that pops up when you open a file and which tracks the collaborative status. It also seems like it adds messenging functionality, which I must admit looks neat - pointed messenging functionality tends to be a lot more productive than general purpose messenging.
Still right now if you edit the same file from different locations at the same time you will end up with conflicting copies. I wonder how/if they solved this.
Yeah, I see that. It would be really nice if you could see the other people editing the file, what they are editing, and a way to diff versions. (Similar to Google Docs editing) This would definitely require some sort of data API.
I could see this being really interesting while collaborating on a complex 3d model or scene. I change one spot of the scene and it propagates to everyone else using the application.
From what I can see there, that is a general windows overlay and not an intergration into Office, which would be much more ugly and afaik would not leak outside the window. So I guess it goes a bit like: DB watch files, find pid of process editing them (PowerPoint w/e) and they overlay a window.
Dropbox at work: The proxy server is refusing connections
They're just blocking the whole domain.
(Edit for those of you who think I'm just trolling for effect. I work at a LARGE fortune 500 (think 250,000 people) and http://www.dropbox.com/ is blocked at the proxy. If your company is going to offer business services, to, hum, businesses, one should insure that one should be accessible from businesses, no?)
Okay, I'll take the bait:
Yes, companies should be able to use the product. How is that at all related to your point? Your company blocks the domain, how is that in Dropbox's control?
Do you shut off your router and whine about how you should be able to use GitHub if they plan to make money?
You do understand that it's the IT department at the Fortune 500 company thats doing the blocking, right?
Dropbox has no control over your IT department, any more than you'd have control over my wireless internet.
And the question becomes: why is this IT department blocking the dropbox service?
Exactly.. some businesses are just not friendly to the idea of automatic synchronization of their very private data to a 3rd party.
For the same reason a lot of companies block USB ports on company computers: so you don't take work material without their knowledge.