Talk:Dropbox

Notability

I wrote a stub article that was flagged for speedy deletion within 60 seconds of entry. I immediately went back to put a {{hangon}} note at the top, but it was already deleted. I still have the text and I have written a more complete entry. However, before I post an expanded version of the article, I want to make sure it doesn't receive the same speedy deletion treatment. The article should survive the speedy deletion criteria for the following reasons:

• The entry was not an advertisement. The content was informational. I am in no way connected with the company.
• The entry is necessary to clear up confusion between Dropbox the storage service and Dropbox the rock band. The page for the band currently has a link to Dropbox (storage provider) but there was no article.
• The article is noteworthy, and similar storage providers such as Mozy or XDrive have pages.

Peter (talk) 19:09, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Sounds like sound reasoning to me. If you recreate the page, there shouldn't be a problem. In the future, consider writing the page locally, for example in your word processor, so that it has a bit more content, then publishing it, to avoid confusion like this in the future. Thanks for your contributions! Happy editing! Pip (talk) 05:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Pip. Peter (talk) 03:16, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Deletionism is a plague. This is why I don't submit new articles to Wikipedia. Get rid of those control freaks.--87.162.10.120 (talk) 11:00, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Fo real. 128.208.95.191 (talk) 22:37, 20 October 2008 (UTC)

License

I updated the license label in according to the COPYING file found in the source package of DropBox. user:vuln —Preceding undated comment added 04:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC).

• I would not say that Dropbox is GNU-complient. The website says: "dropboxd is a per-user closed-source daemon process that makes sure your $HOME/Dropbox directory is properly synchronized with your other computers and our secure backend. nautilus-dropbox is a GPL'd Nautilus plugin that connects to dropboxd (via a pair of Unix domain sockets) and presents a GUI based on the information dropboxd provides." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.99.21.83 (talk) 14:29, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

• Dropbox is licensed under GPL v3 on both client and server, as it use GPL v3 libraries.

• source code for linux client is available on website. so it shouldn't say closed source on licence info...

Limitations

On the current article it's written: "The major limitation of the Dropbox system is that only files in the Dropbox folder are backed up and synced.".... how is that a limitation? that's the way the program it's supposed to work. You have a box.. you drop files in it.. and they go into the internet... so the fact that the program does what it's supposed to do is a limitation?

And you can actually get around that with some googling, just did. :) http://lifehacker.com/5154698/sync-files-and-folders-outside-your-my-dropbox-folder

85.225.146.44 (talk) 23:24, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Yes, thats true. I've done it too and you CAN make symlinks :) The software comes with the app! whiskers75 17:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

But that doesnt work on Windows since you cant make symlinks... Luka666 (talk) 21:33, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

The limitation is that you can't back up program data, since the program itself more often than not chooses where to store the files for you. So, that makes backing up things like email, and application preferences impossible without something like the previously mentioned symbolic links. Also, Luka666, you can make symlinks on Windows; it's actually the first example in that Lifehacker article. Anunnakki (talk) 22:24, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

But the program is not supposed to work as a backup service. It's a storage service on the cloud. I don't understand you should say the program has a limitation about something that is not supposed to be a feature from it. Hey... Dropbox as a limitation because it can't make me breakfast! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.247.230.156 (talk) 14:49, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

Dude, think about what you're saying. You're just playing with semantics here - "storage service" and "backup service" are indistinguishable. Yes, one of Dropbox's primary features is the easy access of your selected files from places other than where it was created; but to say that it's not intended as a backup service is just absurd. Online backup is one of the main features Dropbox touts, as seen on the home page, and the tour page.

Dropbox isn't limited in implementation (nobody has said or is saying that), it's limited by its fundamental design - that is, only the files in your designated folder are synced (backed up), rather than choosing arbitrarily which files to upload. With that said, that limitation isn't a downfall, it's just a design decision. It makes keeping track of all your backed up stuff much easier; and you don't have to manually choose which files to upload - it's all decided by what's in your Dropbox folder. So please, calm down. –Cosmopolitan (talk) 20:46, 4 April 2010 (UTC)

History and alternatives

I really don't think we need to keep expanding that list of alternatives. There really don't need to be more than one or two examples. I'm not even sure "alternatives" should be a part of that section. For readers that are curious about alternatives to Dropbox, the link to the list of backup services is at the bottom of the page. If there are no objections, I'll remove the "alternatives" part of that section. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anunnakki (talk • contribs) 22:12, 2 January 2010 (UTC)

Correct. I would have performed the same action. ThemFromSpace 21:28, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Security

I don't understand what "Zero-knowledge proof encryption" means. The phrase only gets 3 hits on Google and they all come from this article, which makes me think that this is just nonsense. Please explain better what this is supposed to say. -- LM 2010-01-12 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.173.130.126 (talk) 14:11, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Did you click on it and read the article? That worked pretty well for me. If there were any concern over the inclusion of it in this article, I would say it's the lack of a solid reference. Absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence. Anunnakki (talk) 03:39, 13 January 2010 (UTC)

22 April 2010 Revisions

I revised a few things today, mostly the recent additions by User:218.248.46.85. Here is a general summary of the changes, and the reasoning for them where necessary:

1. Changed reference about Drew Houston and Arash Ferdowsi founding the company

   There was no mention of them in reference provided.

2. Changed the non-free NY Times reference regarding Freemium model + 2 GB free to Dropbox's official pricing page.
3. Changed the TechnoSpot reference regarding Dropbox's competitors to an article that speaks of its competition mainly in prose.
4. Moved the "Sneakernet" sentence to the Features section, and reworked the sentence.

5. Removed sentence - "Files in the Dropbox folder may then be shared with other Dropbox users or accessed from the web."

   Sentence is redundant, as this is mentioned in the previous sentence, and in other parts of the article.

6. Removed sentence - "The company received seed funding from Y Combinator and Sequoia Capital." and added {{expand section}}

   Sentence does not belong in Adoption section, and it was recently added to the introductory section.

7. Removed the "Alexa rank" part of the recent additions

   I'm not sure what this is, but there is either no parameter in the Infobox template for that, or the user got the syntax wrong. Besides that, I'm not so sure it's relevant to the article.

–Cosmopolitan (talk) 00:17, 23 April 2010 (UTC)

Revisions from edits on 23 April

1. Removed "award-winning" from the intro, and the added citation. Both were unnecessary.
2. Removed the extra citation for the free 2 GB (unnecessary)
3. Rewrote the History section for grammar and according to better sources.
4. Removed "Dropbox's servers have successfully stored around 1.3 million gigabytes of data." Although interesting, this figure will constantly change, and will be impossible to maintain.

–Cosmopolitan (talk) 08:29, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

26 April Revisions

1. The sentence about the company's founding really doesn't need 3 citations.
2. The "Financials" section is unnecessary; and not only did the "Features" section make it sound way too much like an advertisement, but all of that info is mentioned elsewhere in the article.
3. Revisions to various citations.

I also want to point out a couple of things to User 218.248.46.100 (I will post this on your talk page as well, but as you are not a registered editor, I am not sure if it will reach you there) – I am confident that all your recent edits over the past few days have been well intentioned, but there are some basic guidelines you should be aware of when editing articles:

• Take a look at the Citation rules, and the Cite web template.
• Please take care to use proper grammar when writing articles.
• Please, please, please use the Show preview button before saving your edits.

–Cosmopolitan (talk) 21:51, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of the "Reception" setion

I think the "Awards" section should just be expanded and turned into a general "Criticism" section. If someone wants to get the ball rolling on that, that'd be great; otherwise, I'll start it when I get a chance. –Cosmopolitan (talk) 08:35, 25 April 2010 (UTC)

On some thought, I don't think this article really deserves an entire section to discuss its critical reception. The only reception this type of software would receive are praise, or a statement of preference toward another similar service—and both of those situations could not really be formed into the neutral discussion required by such a section. This is circumstantially evidenced by the current state of the "Reception" section. So, if there are no objections, I will shorten that section into a generalized sentence and move it into the introduction. –Cosmopolitan (talk) 01:07, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with the removal of content from that section: It helps "establish notability" and helps the article avoid deletion. While I agree it might be very hard (or impossible) to keep the reception section "100% neutral", it is very common practice to include "criticism" sections in articles, in fact, I think "reception" is much more neutral than "criticism" and we can list there "good" and "bad" things. But I do not oppose a merge of the section in the article (at the end, for example). --SF007 (talk) 02:29, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Cosmopolitan. The "Reception" section has no added value and reads like an advertisement. In addition, if some journals have been positive about dropbox then where are the references?--Bertbiker (talk) 22:10, 20 April 2011 (UTC)

In addition to receiving praise, Dropbox has received criticism for its security breaches. Froid (talk) 23:50, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Blocking in China

Last removed content:

=== Blocking in China === In May 2010 Dropbox users in [[People's Republic of China|china]] were unable to access Dropbox. Later Dropbox confirmed that Dropbox had got [[Internet censorship in the People's Republic of China|blocked]] in [[People's Republic of China|china]]. However many considered this to be a proof of Dropbox's rapidly rising popularity and international user base. <ref>{{cite web | url = http://stuff.techwhack.com/8815-dropbox-4 | title = dropbox banned | publisher = techwhack | accessdate = 2010-4-15}}</ref><ref>{{cite web | url = http://www.neowin.net/news/china-blocks-dropbox-cloud-storage-service | title = dropbox blocked | publisher = neowin | accessdate = 2010-4-15}}</ref><ref>{{cite web | url = http://www.geek.com/articles/news/china-has-blocked-dropbox-20100511/ | title = dropbox blocked | publisher = geek.com | accessdate = 2010-4-15}}</ref><ref>{{cite web | url = http://shanghaiist.com/2010/05/11/another_one_bites_the_dust_file-sha.php | title = dropbox blocked | publisher = shanghaiist | accessdate = 2010-4-15}}</ref><ref>{{cite web | url = http://www.mingtiandi.com/entrepreneurship/20100511/idiot-proofing-dropbox-and-the-gfw/ | title = dropbox blocked in china | publisher = mingtiandi | accessdate = 2010-4-15}}

I realize that that this is an upsetting issue, and it's truly unfortunate that the Chinese government has decided to block Dropbox. However, this article isn't the place to discuss Chinese politics. –Cosmopolitan (talk) 08:38, 12 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree that this is not a place to discuss Chinese politics, but the fact that Dropbox is blocked in China is certainly an important information for those who live in China. Just as important as which operating systems can be used, and much more important than the reception section. The fact that Dropbox is blocked in China should be in the article. 219.234.148.181 (talk) 03:38, 13 August 2010 (UTC)

Requested move (2010)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page not moved. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 22:55, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

---

Dropbox (storage provider) → Dropbox — This is the most used page with the name. In May 2010 so far, Dropbox_(band) has 1,134 views, Dropbox_(album) has 411 views, and Dropbox_(storage_provider) has 24,223 views, and this is surely to increase since the band with the same name separated in 2006. Gary King (talk) 04:19, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. Changed my vote. Vega is right. "Dropbox" is a title for this program, which is merely symbolic for a "digital dropbox", not an actual dropbox. –Cosmopolitan (talk) 07:55, 30 May 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose. The generic use is the primary use. None of the articles is the primary use. Vegaswikian (talk) 07:45, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

  Is there a guideline regarding this? Dictionary terms belong at Wiktionary. I'm basing my move request on WP:PRIMARYUSAGE. Gary King (talk) 09:01, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

  No, there is no guideline. As seen at WP:PRIMARYUSAGE, "[t]here are no absolute rules for determining which topic is most likely to be sought by readers". Rejectwater (talk) 14:10, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

  While dictionary terms belong at Wictionary, that does not mean we can not have an encyclopedic article on that topic. There is the history, and various types of design. Then we can go into the various uses for bank drop offs to variations that allow pickups at stores and medical facilities. Also page counts, while part of the picture, do not determine primary use. Vegaswikian (talk) 16:48, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

  As Vega was saying, page views aren't really a good basis for judging primary use. While the Dropbox software may be the most popular article in terms of page views, we should still stick to accurate names. Just as an example, in April, the Muse article had 144,358 views, while the Muse (band) article had 273,082. Technically, the band's article is the more popular article, but that doesn't mean it should commandeer the "Muse" title. –Cosmopolitan (talk) 22:16, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

  Well, I'm not going to argue this until the cows come home, but the Muse article is a different situation as that article is fully fleshed out already. If you go to Dropbox, though, there's little there to usefully explain the meaning of the generic term "Dropbox". Gary King (talk) 23:06, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

  Which is the way it should be since that is the dab page and not an article. Fleshing it out goes in an article. Vegaswikian (talk) 18:40, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose. I agree: to a general audience the generic is still the primary usage. However, I think something simpler like Dropbox (service) or Dropbox (computer) would be fine. -- Pnm (talk) 06:58, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
• Oppose The generic term is the primary usage, and as Vegaswikian states, there could be an article about the generic term. Rejectwater (talk) 11:59, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Votebox

Should Dropbox's feature suggestion system, votebox, be mentioned in the article?--Earboxer (talk) 21:54, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree. I believe it should be, as it is a value added service to the dropbox product. -- OtterNZ (talk) 15:14, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Agree. As above; its something they offer in the mix of services. --Jimthing (talk) 04:14, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

Simpler name

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Arbitrarily0 ^(talk) 11:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

---

Dropbox (storage provider) → Dropbox (service) — Simpler name for the class of which Dropbox is part, making article easier to link. --Pnm (talk) 00:01, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Agree: I don't see why not. –Cosmopolitan (talk) 02:11, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Referral Links

I just removed a referral link from a "example" url. Reading the history for the page it appears I'm not the first one to have to make this fix. Is there a good solution to this general problem? Worst case maybe ask Dropbox to redirect links that come from Wikipedia to their signup section just to the generic home page and remove the incentive to spam their links for the extra free space? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.84.180.231 (talk) 21:51, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

We should do something, because it seems to happen very frequently, and it's getting frustrating. I'll email Dropbox about it. If all else fails, we may have to request that the page be semi-protected. –Cosmopolitan (talk) 02:09, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

As I recall, there is a list of blacklisted URLs. Don't know if this would fit the criteria, but fell free to research. Vegaswikian (talk) 19:55, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean, but Dropbox support emailed back asking for a list of the referral links, and that he would "take care of the accounts." I don't know if this will solve anything for the prevention of further instances of this, but if it continues, as I said, we might just have to make the page semi-protected. –Cosmopolitan (talk) 22:45, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I just got an email back from Dropbox's Customer Support Lead, and she has informed me that all referrals that have been edited into the page have been invalidated, and that future abuses will result in full account bans for them. I commented in a warning stating such in the article wherever the link to the home page appears, so hopefully this will be enough to deter future abusers. –Cosmopolitan (talk) 00:44, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

I just made a request for referral links to be added to the blacklist: MediaWiki talk:Spam-blacklist#www.dropbox.com/referrals. —danhash (talk) 15:24, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

References in client section

I only did some basic referencing on the new client section I added, so that there was information for those who needed it, and so it wouldn't get deleted. At some point over the next few days I'm going to change the formatting of the references to match the rest of the article, unless someone else does it first. The access date for the references was July 5, 2010 GMT+12, and it was not long after midnight, so July 4 if the reference date is going to be UTC - OtterNZ (talk) 15:19, 4 July 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, it's not just a matter of properly formatting the citations; it's a question of whether or not the article really needs a bulleted list of each individual user-end clients Dropbox offers. It really does not—the "Cross-platform" bit in the infobox relays all necessary information about that. –Cosmopolitan (talk) 07:59, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

To respond to Steven Walling's note, I think because of the API, it might be worth working into the prose elsewhere in the article (similar to the various usages listed in the last paragraph in the Functionality section), but a bulleted list of every single client is not necessary for the article. If the API Dropbox released causes an explosion of available clients, then such a list might warrant its own Wikipedia article, but until then, we don't need to list every client, and especially not in the main article. –Cosmopolitan (talk) 21:26, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

There is clear precedent for including lists of apps used to access a service with an active API. The open client ecosystems of Twitter and countless other services including Dropbox, are a subject that is both important and verifiable. Millions of people use these clients, and there is no reason not describe in detail the variety of clients that can be mentioned with decent sourcing. As you seem to be the only one fighting this, with multiple people adding it, I will be reverting. Steven Walling 22:36, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

While the open client ecosystems of services like Twitter are most assuredly notable enough for inclusion in Wikipedia, the precedent for tabulating each individual client for a service like Dropbox, that is purely for personal data storage, is not. Twitter is undoubtedly an important and relevant service, so much so that it is nothing short of a modern-day cultural phenomenon. That is why the United States Library of Congress is cataloging it in its entirety.

Keeping these facts in mind, it is baffling to me that you are placing Dropbox anywhere near the same level of significance. Even as important a topic as Twitter is, even its own article barely mentions anything at all about the cornucopia of clients available for its use outside the web site itself. For this purpose, there is a wiki that is solely dedicated to listing all the notable clients. The most the main Twitter article says in this regard is

The service's Application programming interface (API) allows other web services and applications to integrate with Twitter.

This, or perhaps a sentence or two, is all Dropbox needs to point out about the comparatively small number of clients that are available thus far.

Secondly, it been less than two days since OtterNZ added the section, so I do not believe you have allowed enough time for holding the whopping two-editor majority opinion as reason for blithely bypassing discussion of a controversial addition. I will not continue edit warring with you, but you should settle the topic here before continuing edits to the section under controversy. –Cosmopolitan (talk) 06:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I don't feel that "cross-platform" is suitable as the only description of the scope of dropbox clients. One of the reasons that this service is so popular is because of the wide range of client options. Mozy is also listed as "cross-platform", but according to their website only have a windows and mac client. So that's 2 clients vs 11 that we've listed so far for dropbox. Sugarsync is also "cross-platform" but only has 6 cliets vs 11, and no linux version.

These examples help to show that dropbox's client options are significantly more impressive than other services, and deserve a mention. We could even go a step further and list the html access via the website as another client too, making it 12.

If we had to come to a compromise, I would be open to reducing the list, with things like reducing seperate bullet points for each mobile client to something along the lines of "Mobile - There are compact mobile clients available for iPhone, Windows Mobile, and Android that allow XXXXXXX functionality, with another being developed for blackberry" and "Desktop - Graphical front ends are available for Windows, Mac, and Linux (Gnome 32/64bit), which provide XXXXXXX functionality. There is also an unofficial client (KDropBox) to provide similar features for those running KDE in Linux" - Faded_Mantis (talk) 07:12, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

You talk of Twitters many clients. I agree that dropbox doesn't have enough to warrant making a new page as a list of clients, but it does have too many clients to brush them all aside with "cross-platform". You said maybe it should be reduced? I also mentioned the possibility of that above, maybe an agreement with something along those lines could be come to? - Faded_Mantis (talk) 07:20, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree that it does have an impressive array of client options available, especially in comparison to similar services, but that is already mentioned throughout the article, albeit in generalized form. I would not be against expounding the article on its varieties of clients, but a bulleted list of every single one is just not necessary. The addition should be in prose somewhere in the intro, or somewhere in the Functionality section, something along the lines of

In comparison to similar services, Dropbox offers a relatively large number of user clients across a variety of desktop and mobile operating systems. There are a total of 12 clients, including versions for Microsoft Windows, Mac OS X, and Linux, as well as versions for mobile devices, such as the iPhone, iPad, Android, Windows Mobile, and Blackberry.

–Cosmopolitan (talk) 08:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

I think that your summary there is quite good as a compromise between what we each seem to want. I would like mention of the web page interface (it's the 12th client). When I picked the service this was an important part for me, it allows me to access my stuff from friends/work computers etc that don't have a dropbox client installed. Another thing that I think would go good to include is mention of the KDropBox client for KDE. This is harder to find because it's a community project, and doesn't appear on the dropbox main page, and can be a bit hard to find on google if you don't know it's name. However I'm having trouble thinking of how to add KDropBox reference. Maybe:

In comparison to similar services, Dropbox offers a relatively large number of user clients across a variety of desktop and mobile operating systems. There are a total of 12 clients, including versions for Microsoft Windows, Mac OS X, and Linux (official and unofficial), as well as versions for mobile devices, such as the iPhone, iPad, Android, Windows Mobile, and Blackberry, and a web based client for when no local client is installed.

Changes are marked in bold. The word "unofficial" would have an external link to the KDropbox client. I think that this addition would be suitable to add to the second paragraph of the introduction in place of "the service is cross-platform, with clients available for several different operating systems and mobile devices, as well as a Web-based client." - Faded_Mantis (talk) 06:23, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Copyright issues

"Dropbox has reserved the right to delete or remove any file from users' accounts if it violates the DMCA." And how do they know whats in the files? They are snooping on them? --IceHunter (talk) 00:13, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

I assume they would only find out if they received a takedown notice from some company, like if someone put a music collection in their public folder, posted the links all over the internet, and the copyright owner found it. It's the same process for anyone, really; YouTube deals with takedowns every day, for people who upload rips of TV shows, movies, etc. Dropbox likely doesn't have the resources, or the interest, to "snoop" every user's files. –Cosmopolitan (talk) 01:41, 19 February 2011 (UTC)

Dropbox Privacy Scandal

Dropbox is making widespread, international news for allegedly lying to the public about its security procedures and policy.

http://www.boingboing.net/2011/04/21/dropboxs-new-securit.html

Miguel de Icaza noticed that Dropbox's new security terms of service allows it to decrypt your stored files for law enforcement; but Dropbox has always claimed that it did not store the keys necessary to do this. This has been used as both a selling point ("we keep your files so safe, we can't access them") and an excuse ("don't ask us for help if you lose your crypto keys, we don't store them"), but it was, apparently, a lie. De Icaza worries that a company that lies about its crypto and security policy may not be trustworthy when it comes to files containing sensitive information... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cowicide (talk • contribs) 22:53, 21 April 2011 (UTC)

I don't think wikipedia shares your definition of 'wide'. 68.34.210.83 (talk) 17:16, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Old name

There is no reference to the site's old name, "DropBoks." I think it's worth pointing out in the article.72.84.139.116 (talk) 22:52, 28 December 2011 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved -- JHunterJ (talk) 01:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC) JHunterJ (talk) 01:28, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

---

Requested move (2012)

Dropbox (service) → Dropbox – Primary topic. Page views: service 53,750, band 741, album 255. If the "drop off" box used at banks and such is the primary topic then why hasn't an article even been created? There really isn't much to say about that subject. It's like creating an article about shower curtain rings. One sentence does not an article make. Entries like this are better suited to Wiktionary. Marcus Qwertyus 13:21, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose WP:SYSTEMATICBIAS favoring computer users, instead of the world at large. Leave the disambiguation page where it is. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 08:10, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The average person in the world has a mobile phone but does not have a bank account; much less a car to use a dropbox.[1] Another 10% has access to computers. I also doubt other languages even have a word for this arbitrary portmanteau.

The word calculator came from human mathematicians called calculators. Human mathematicians (7 billion) still outnumber electronic calculators. Does that make mathematician the primary topic? Marcus Qwertyus 08:36, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

The word "Apple" is frequently used to refer to the company Apple Inc., that does not mean that because many people use electronics, that the company should be primary article, whatever the usage hits on Wikipedia. The world calculator used to refer to clerks who would calculate things, thus an archaic usage, however dropboxes are still used in everyday life, so is not an archaic usage. 76.65.128.132 (talk) 06:55, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose per my comments above and the comments by other editors in support of my comments. Anyone attempting a close should probably take a look at the previous discussions. Vegaswikian (talk) 01:37, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose. There is no primary topic. An older, even more prevalent computing term is Excel which is not the primary topic for excel. This is a web-based encyclopedia so of course there's lots of coverage of technology, just like the web in general is biased toward technology. And though in recent speech, "dropbox" often means Dropbox, it's still not the primary topic. By comparison, a justified primary topic is Facebook, which is both extremely well known, and only competes with the quite obscure original facebook. – Pnm (talk) 17:18, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Review Flag (Feb 6 2013)

New here, so please forgive novice mistakes. I just flagged the technology section for review because of the "And inexplicably, paid users..." part. It did not seem very neutral, and should probably be rewritten to simply explain the terms of service. Almiddeleer (talk) 05:12, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Agreed, should tone it down a bit. I will try to elp this week.Synergee (talk) 07:00, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

I am working on it now, there is a lot of stuff that I don't find necessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Synergee (talk • contribs) 06:13, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

Not a great download of initial program

I found that downloading the inital program to run drop box from my computer was very slow. What's that about? 101.51.235.63 (talk) 02:00, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

POV check needed

The Technology section has an existing issue noted and upon reading the entire article I see problems. If you read the page it is too much like a sales pitch rather than an article. Also, many sources are dropbox.com and that doesn't seem right. After reading a lot about the guidelines I thought that a POV check would not be a bad idea from some other editors. Synergee (talk) 06:31, 23 April 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you, Synergee. New worl (talk) 11:20, 26 April 2013 (UTC)

Suggesting Move to Dropbox (company)

I just recently found out that the article Box (service) was moved to Box (company) by User:Trevj. So i think even this page should be moved to Dropbox (company). If majority opinion is yes, then we may make a move.

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: Not moved. Nathan Johnson (talk) 16:50, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

---

Dropbox (service) → Dropbox (company) – Similar move on the Box.net/Box (service) page Compfreak7 (talk) 14:53, 20 May 2013 (UTC) Compfreak7 (talk) 14:53, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose – no clear rationale given. The article as written is about the service, not the company (at least the lead is; that's as far as I read). Are you proposing to rewrite it to be more about the company? Is there a good reason to do so? Dicklyon (talk) 15:29, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

I am just trying to make article names follow a universal nomenclature, the Box.net article is about the service and the the company both. I suggest the Dropbox article too must be expanded/modified to include details about the company. And that the page be renamed as i mentioned. Since i feel people must identify Dropbox as a company, not just a File-Sync, File-Share or File-hosting service. That way you would leave a long list of providers as just service providers, when they are actually running huge businesses out of the 'software suite' they offer their users.

If you wish to leave this page, as is. Then just consider whether the Box page should read (service) or (company). Compfreak7 (talk) 04:35, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

• Oppose there's no need. The reason box was moved is because it's name changed from Box.net to Box. AThere is obviously going to be confusion with the word 'box' as it's a word and a page exists that is more relevant. After that, I don't know why it was moved further. Dropbox the 'software' is quite popular and known, and is probably what a user is going to be looking to read about, not the company, it only plays a role of managing the service so, the name fits. I don't know why Box was moved from service to company, but this isn't worth moving. Matthew Thompson ^{talk to me bro!} 07:55, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
• Oppose I think the move would cause even more confusion. Synergee (talk) 19:33, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

How should this work?

"Dropbox supports multi-user version control, enabling several users to edit and re-post files without overwriting versions." - Unfortunately the posted "source" doesn't say anything how the multi-user problem is solved (especially what happens if several users access or change the same file). I'll remove the source. 178.197.228.116 (talk) 10:10, 17 August 2013 (UTC)

Dropbox financing

(Removed talk of unrelated matter without facts.) meatclerk (talk) 19:44, 4 May 2014 (UTC)

Edit review

Hi there! I recently cleaned up the section on Dropbox for Business, which was horribly wordy, redundant, and inaccurate. A good deal of the article has similar problems, but alas. Since I have a connection with the company, please feel free to review. IMHO, however, the revised text is less spammy than the original :) LFaraone 20:11, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

Evenflow

Is Evenflow the parent company or a previous name? I can't seem to find any details but in a court document Evenflow is named as "dba" which supposedly means "doing buiseness as": http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/california/candce/3:2009cv03824/218466/10/ MagicLizard (talk) 06:46, 2 October 2014 (UTC)

Citation needed : use of Amazon's S3 storage system to store the files

This probably doesn't constitute a clear citation, however :

• Dropbox communicated it did use Amazon S3 until 13/03/2014
• it wasn't communicating about it anymore on 14/03/2014
• thanks to some wire sniffing while transfering files, it still uses Amazon Web Services :

  16:59:38.006235 ec2-23-21-245-226.compute-1.amazonaws.com.https > pc.example.com.52875: . ack 572055838 win 202
  

Requested move 4 June 2015

The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was not moved. --BDD (talk) 15:00, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Dropbox (service) → Dropbox – Overwhelmingly the Primary topic for the combination "Dropbox". A dablink would suffice for the band as well as the concept of a post box. The other two concepts lack long-term significance for this name, specifically. (NB: I'm a software engineer at the company, but am not speaking on behalf of Dropbox) LFaraone 00:36, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose for same reasons as consensus a few months back at Talk:Dropbox RM In ictu oculi (talk) 09:15, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per In ictu oculi. CookieMonster755 ^(talk) 23:47, 4 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per the March 2015 consensus pointed out by IIO -- 70.51.46.11 (talk) 04:40, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose. On the contrary, "dropbox" as an alternate name for post box probably has far more long-term, decades-long significance than a tech company that only has been around for eight years. The 2012 consensus also pointed out that if the tech company is made the primary topic, this would also introduce WP:SYSTEMATICBIAS. The example also cited there is the Apple article, whose primary topic is the fruit because on centuries-old significance, even though Apple Inc. may receive more usage from time-to-time. Zzyzx11 (talk) 10:46, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support for same reasons as given at Talk:Dropbox RM. I don't believe the usage of dropbox as a synonym for mailbox particularly prevalent so there's no harm in having Dropbox-the-service be the primary topic here. If the service was called "mailbox" or "postbox", sure, but it isn't. SnowFire (talk) 14:14, 6 June 2015 (UTC)
• Oppose per COI. I would normally be in favor of a move, but because the nominator works at the company, this nomination may be biased and the 2012 consensus should stick. ONR (talk) 20:59, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

  Wikipedia:Requested moves states Note: Unlike certain other request processes on Wikipedia, nominations need not be neutral.. I brought this up for discussion, and asserting that the "nomination may be biased" isn't a valid reason to oppose. LFaraone 17:03, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Edits relating to client-side encryption

[2] and [3] added verbage to this article stating […] without client side encryption, user’s information is left unsecured because it remains easily accessible to unauthorized persons.. That's a PoV statement; moreso, one can't really make blanket generalisations about such a practice being "secure" or "insecure" — information security is incredibly context-dependent. The first edit also stated Dropbox does not allow users to create their own private keys, contradicted by its own source which states While Dropbox does not provide for client-side encryption users are free to add their own.. In addition, citing a Wikipedia article as a source (and an article which was quickly modified by the author) seems poor. These statements are my own and opinions expressed therein are not necessarily those of my employer. LFaraone 02:32, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

 Done Agreed that the edits are a bit POVy, I have removed most of the added material. —  crh ₂₃  (Talk) 20:40, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Dropbox Malpractice

I would like to start a discussion and review of an alarming trend showing Dropbox routinely helping themselves to between 75 and 1500 U$D from small business user accounts credit cards. The process is entirely unauthorized....the purchase of unwanted and unrequired upgrades. My company was targeted 3 days ago by Dropbox who took 750 U$D. What reeks all the more of fraud and malpractice, is the anonymous unaccountability of Dropbox who hide behind unanswered voicemails and ignored email messages. This is wholesale theft and there are many, many companies out there who have been robbed.

69.80.48.253 (talk) 21:25, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

While I am neither talking for Dropbox, nor knowing about the particular cases mentioned above, it is also possible that this may be actions by third-party scammers. In any case, to mention this in the article, we would need to properly cite from a case reported by a reliable source. 76.10.128.192 (talk) 04:37, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Would be best to reach out to journalists about this. If a reliable source publishes something, we can cite it in the article. --2001:4898:80E8:5:0:0:0:51B (talk) 22:55, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Privacy issues

While I found most of the subsection fine, I am not sure that the following apologetics are appropriate there. Some are uncited, and others appear to be advertizements, or have been demonstrated to likely be false claims. It's possible that part of the paragraph would be appropriate in another section about the available features offered by Dropbox (like two-step authentication). If it is intended as a refutation, it should be better cited and may best be placed at the top or bottom of the subsection, reworded. The paragraph follows:

According to Dropbox, the cloud service provider has strict policies on security of users files, data, and maintained privacy implications. Any Dropbox accounts require two-step verification.[clarification needed] For further privacy implications, Dropbox provides users option to choose above regular login verification. Two-step verification is another secure option for users account. This verification option requires users to enter a security code on top of usual username and password login.[117] On users behalf, Dropbox offers the service of encrypting users files and folders.[citation needed] Dropbox employees will not be able to access a user's files without the user's username and password. Nonetheless, Dropbox policies have certain exceptions to their policy.[118] According to Dropbox, users' privacy is one of their top priorities. Dropbox for Business is created and made available for users to store important files that require more advanced security options.[119]

Thanks, 76.10.128.192 (talk) 04:32, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Dropbox (service). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140219114633/http://techwhack.co/sony-sees-10-year-life-for-playstation-2-console-4/ to http://techwhack.co/sony-sees-10-year-life-for-playstation-2-console-4/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:05, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

Offices

Hi @HaeB: I'd like to discuss the Offices section. You didn't explain much in your edit summary other than "of course ... it's relevant" and your statement about "covered in independent RS" is also untrue, since parts of the section rely on old Dropbox terms of service and privacy policies. Here's my thinking: The section doesn't describe why that information is important. The lead states the company is headquartered in San Francisco, and that information is relevant in terms of what jurisdiction and country a cloud storage service is under. However, the specific information ("Suite 400", "fourth floor ... 85,600 square feet") doesn't seem to serve any reason for actually being there. It becomes a sort of trivia. The fact that Dropbox expanded its operation could possibly be retained and reworded, but still doesn't actually explain much about the importance of featuring the info in the article. Thoughts? LocalNet (talk) 07:54, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Please do not characterize your actions in a misleading way. For later reference, we are talking about [4] (blanket removal of an entire section including several independent RS citations) and [5].

We can debate the removal of the specific details you mention here (fourth floor etc.), but you have not explained, for example, why the article must not mention that the company also opened an office in Austin, and received financial incentives from the city and state for this. Also, there is no Wikipedia law stipulating that all sections must "describe why that information is important". And contrary to your "untrue" claim, the office locations were actually covered in independent RS besides Dropbox's own website - check the citations. Regards, HaeB (talk) 08:55, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

How exactly did I "characterize your actions in a misleading way"? I'm genuinely trying to understand what you mean by that. In regards to the expansion to Austin, I can see how that information is important, and I did write above that "Dropbox expanded its operation could possibly be retained and reworded", so I do see how my deletion of that info was a mistake, and I apologize for that. But very detailed information such as "suite 400" and "fourth floor" don't serve an encyclopedic purpose without explanation of its significance, and the sources listed following "Suite 400" and "San Francisco" are old privacy policies and terms of service agreements that have been updated and no longer contain the details on suite 400 and fourth floor of the China Basin Landing building. Why is it important in an encyclopedia what suite and what floor Dropbox is located? The headquarters and offices country and city locations are important, but that level of detail isn't, in my opinion. But I do fully agree with you that the expansion to Austin and financial incentives are noteworthy, and I want to apologize for removing that. Still, though, I'm genuinely curious, what parts of my text did I "characterize [my] actions in a misleading way", because if I have done that, I apologize for that too, but I want to know what specifics so I am aware of my miscommunications in the future? LocalNet (talk) 10:16, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Edit: I'm sorry, I think I understand what you mean by mischaracterizations. If you meant that I wrote "of course ... it's relevant" above rather than your full edit summary, I definitely see how that could be interpreted wrong. I am so sorry about that. A lapse in judgement, and I regret that. Looked okay when I first wrote my post here, but reading it again now, I definitely see the problem. Sorry. LocalNet (talk) 10:36, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

Edit 2: I can't see the whole source about location switch, but I can read the beginning of it, which does confirm China Basin and 85,600 square feet. I regret my errors here, and I think I'll let the section be the way it is. I apologize for this, but thank you for pointing it out to me so I can improve my editing (and communication) in the future. LocalNet (talk) 10:44, 27 January 2017 (UTC)

@LocalNet and HaeB: For what its worth, Dropbox moved to 333 & 343 Brannan St in Q2 2016. I've amended the section accordingly, and will try and see if I can get some photos. LFaraone 03:07, 5 March 2017 (UTC)

History section

Hi everybody! As my recent edit shows, I thought it would be an improvement for the History section to be written as a prose rather than as a list. This is similar to how I see most History sections being done on Wikipedia. And my first question is, are you satisfied with that? I am, hehe :) Second, if the information is too much for one section, I would like to create a new, main page for the history. I realize that a Timeline of Dropbox page exists, which, coincidentally, has been nominated for deletion, but that information is made into a list in a table. I'd like one to be written as a text, which (in my personal opinion) is better. Furthermore, the history of Dropbox is obviously not done, and there will come a time when the section *is* too long. A new, main page can cover all the details, while the History section in the main article can summarize and cover the most important aspects. Thoughts? :) LocalNet (talk) 21:53, 16 March 2017 (UTC)

Giving myself a delayed response here. No objections have been raised regarding creation of a new, main article for History of Dropbox in a prose rather than a table, so I will go forward with that plan. That said, it's not an easy thing to do, so will take some time, but I will hopefully get started on it soon. LocalNet (talk) 18:47, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Turns out that creating a main page for History is more difficult than I imagined. I'm having a really hard time deciding what content should be moved to the main article and what should be here, and how to summarize developments. A new, main page for History will probably need to be created in the future because the section will only get longer, but at this time, the only change I will make is add two-year subsections inside History for easier overview and readability. LocalNet (talk) 20:53, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Useful source

BBC article today about Dropbox history: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-44766487

This reliable source seems to contradict the unsourced comments in the article about how Ferdowski came to join the company. I'm no expert on Dropbox, so won't amend, but one of you may like to. --Dweller (talk) Become old fashioned! 08:50, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Announced end of support for syncing on Linux filesystems different from ext4

On August 10, 2018 a post appeared on Dropbox forum, Dropbox client warns me that it'll stop syncing in Nov, why?, resulting in many a publication on the Net.

The end of support of automated sync on Linux systems different from ext4 is scheduled on November 07, 2018. Perhaps this should be added to the main article; according to the mentioned and related forum posts, Linux users aren't generally happy with the restriction to come. Boyandin (talk) 10:23, 15 August 2018 (UTC)

Obsolete Template:Dropbox replacement ?

I search the template which replace the obsolete Template:Dropbox. Thanks in advance.--Rical (talk) 06:48, 29 August 2018 (UTC)

Condoleezza Rice

In the german Wikipedia you find very critical remarks on DropBox because of employing Condoleezza Rice. Rice was co-responsible for the illegal Irak War and so for hundred thousands of deads. She is also co-responsible for illegal torture, e.g. waterboarding, by the US-Government:

http://www.drop-dropbox.com/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condoleezza_Rice#National_Security_Advisor_(2001%E2%80%932005)

I am astonished to find nothing in this article. Facts can only be ignored if you know about them?

Thank you, Simon -217.82.99.218 (talk) 20:42, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Controversy: unwise company name

drop box, baby box

South Korea, UK, etc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ExyeyrcFPFM

Requested move 18 July 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved. There is consensus to move Dropbox (service) to Dropbox. There is also a consensus to move the disambiguation page to Drop box. (closed by non-admin page mover) SkyWarrior 02:57, 25 July 2021 (UTC)

---

• Dropbox (service) → Dropbox
• Dropbox → Dropbox (disambiguation)

– I believe that the storage service could reasonably be determined as the primary topic (something which pageviews seems to support: [verify]). Google and Google News universally refer to the service if you search for the term also. I look forward to everyone's thoughts on this proposal. Sean Stephens (talk) 02:16, 18 July 2021 (UTC)

• Support per comments at previous (failed) RMs. Note that Wikipedia is not a dictionary so just because "dropbox" might mean a drop-off box in normal English, that is not necessarily that relevant for Wikipedia titling purposes, since the Internet company/service is a far more relevant encyclopedic topic. Post box (which should probably be included in the above pageview comparison) has a mere ~100 hits a day, while the service has ~2,000 hits a day, 20x the rate. This article has been the primary topic for years, and it isn't that close. SnowFire (talk) 05:36, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support, and suggest Drop box for the disambiguation page, since a majority of items there use the space (WP:DABNAME). Adumbrativus (talk) 08:00, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
  • I think this is a better alternative actually. Hopefully others agree. Sean Stephens (talk) 00:42, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support, the Internet service is clearly the primary topic, especially seeing as every other topic excluding the band and their album is spelled "drop box", not "dropbox". Oh, and support drop box as the target for the disambig page instead of dropbox (disambiguation) per User:Adumbrativus. JIP | Talk 02:19, 19 July 2021 (UTC)
• Support 1, use Drop box for disambiguation instead. I think the physical box has a claim to long-term significance, but generally it is spelled as "drop box", not "dropbox", leaving the company as the sole primary topic of the one-word term. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:40, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Languages

I think that Dropbox is also available in Dutch. Language section has to be updated. 186.179.192.32 (talk) 01:06, 18 November 2021 (UTC)

Split article

I would suggest splitting the article into Dropbox for the software and Dropbox, Inc. for the company. Please let me know your ideas about this. PhotographyEdits (talk) 11:21, 22 April 2024 (UTC)