Dropbox Outage Map

Community Discussion

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

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

Dropbox Issues Reports

Latest outage, problems and issue reports in social media:

• 
  John B. Holbein (@JohnHolbein1) reported 6 minutes ago

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

• 
  The Open Web JP (@TheOpenWebJP1) reported 7 minutes ago

  @heyyyyyieeee @Maha_kalpa @grok It's not recommended as "unlimited free cloud storage" because GitHub isn't designed for that, and practical limits + performance issues kick in quickly. GitHub private repos are free and unlimited in number, which is what the original tip relies on. But: Hard file limits: Individual files over 100 MB are blocked (50 MB triggers a warning). Browser uploads are capped even lower (~25 MB). Larger files require *** LFS. Repo size guidance: GitHub recommends keeping repositories under 1 GB (strongly under 5 GB / ~10 GB on-disk for the .*** folder). Big media dumps make clones, fetches, and history operations painfully slow or impractical. *** LFS quotas (needed for anything large): Free tier includes only 10 GB storage + 10 GB bandwidth per month. Exceed that and you hit blocks or billing (depending on settings). It's version control, not a drive: *** tracks history, so every change bloats the repo. Binaries (photos, videos, etc.) are inefficient in ***. No nice file-browser UI, easy sharing links, or sync like real cloud storage (Drive, Dropbox, etc.). Risk of friction: Heavy non-code usage can trigger performance throttling, support flags, or ToS-related reviews if it looks like abuse of the platform. GitHub actively monitors repo health signals. It's fine for small code-adjacent backups or a few files. Terrible as a general-purpose unlimited media dump. Use actual cloud storage (or object storage) for that.

• 
  Helix (@helixcanvas) reported 9 minutes ago

  Two companies, two correct instincts, and about a billion dollars between the outcomes. In 2007 Dropbox had a problem: the product needed deep operating system integration, so there was no way to demo it without building it first. Drew Houston made a three minute video instead, showing how it would work if it existed, and put it in front of the community most likely to care. The beta waiting list went from five thousand to seventy-five thousand overnight. He knew the demand was real before he wrote the difficult part. Webvan believed something just as sensible. People want groceries delivered. And they were right, which is the part everyone forgets. Instacart and every supermarket delivery service proved it a decade later. But instead of testing it in one city, Webvan committed close to a billion dollars to automated warehouses across multiple markets before knowing whether the economics worked anywhere. It filed for bankruptcy in 2001. Build, measure, learn is three steps. Most of us run the first one over and over and mistake the motion for progress. Shipping is not learning.

• 
  Bruno Marsino (@BrunoMarsino) reported 10 minutes ago

  Company for AI age: - Information should flow flat - Can’t wait to have all information to make decisions - Speed and excelente in execution is crucial - You should get as much info as possible during the constraint of time given by yourself - How do we prepare a company to be totally eligible for AI? Not only text info but images - Service of the future is not about giving agents to corps to solve problems but offering the solution/service driven by AI. - Even if all information is on the web, multiple file structures, owners, formats and file storage systems (dropbox, drive, box) add friction to information and decision making

• 
  Zafar (@zafartalks) reported 13 minutes ago

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

• 
  Danny Grinberg (@DannyGrinberg) reported 15 minutes ago

  @DropboxSupport I DMd you guys but pandadoc is looking great right now ngl its an error when you have an existing dropbox sign trial and you try to upgrade to the api version it wont let you (insane)

• 
  Duaa 🤲🇮🇳 (@Duaa_1206) reported 20 minutes ago

  @himasoraakane Doing digital forensics on Dropbox error screens to investigate a suspended account is a whole new level of investigative work.

• 
  WPBeginner (@wpbeginner) reported 23 minutes ago

  You have spent months building your WordPress site. What happens the day it suddenly goes offline? 😱 It happens all the time. We have heard several scary stories. A plugin conflict, a bad update, or a security breach can wipe out your complete website without any warning. The scary part is that most site owners assume their host has them fully covered, right up until they actually need to restore. We have tested countless backup tools on our own projects, so we put together the exact methods we trust to keep a site safe. Here is what you will learn: ✅ Pick the Right Method: Compare backup plugins, host backups, and manual cPanel or FTP so you know which fits your skill level. ✅ Back Up the Full Site: Save your database, themes, plugins, and uploads together so you can restore everything, not just your posts. ✅ Automate It With @DuplicatorWP: Schedule daily or weekly backups and send them straight to the cloud so you never have to remember. ✅ Store Copies Off Your Server: Keep backups in Google Drive, Dropbox, or Amazon S3 so one server crash never takes your site and its backup at once. ✅ Restore in Minutes: Use a disaster recovery link to bring your site back even when it is completely broken. Ready to protect all that hard work before disaster strikes? Read our complete step-by-step guide from the link in the comments 👇 (Link is in the thread below)

• 
  Palpy (@evgenij_rabij) reported 24 minutes ago

  A 32 YEAR OLD PRAGUE DEV BULK-BUYS $180 CHINESE NAS BOXES AND NOW PULLS $7,200 A MONTH SHIPPING PRIVATE DROPBOX-KILLERS TO EU FREELANCE DESIGNERS While massive brands scramble to lock teams into clunky, data-mining cloud databases, this creator built a private intelligence system that secures sensitive data and brings in a massive stream of passive revenue every single month. He makes a steady $7,200 every single month by building and configuring private cloud and AI indexing hardware for EU freelance designers who want to escape subscription traps. The entire micro server fits right on the corner of a desk and runs on an ORICO metabox HS200 pro unit. This tiny sliver of hardware packs an Intel N100 processor, 8GB DDR4 RAM, and pumps out local cloud performance on a machine the size of a coffee coaster. Instead of letting his clients burn cash on recurring cloud storage retainers, the engineer pairs the board with two refurbished 30TB hard drives in RAID 1, pre-installs the software, and sells the complete physical package at a premium. Pause at the 0:02 mark in the video where the drive slides in: that is a sleek metallic chassis hosting a $1,000 mini-NAS holding 30TB of encrypted client data. The core value proposition of this setup comes down to absolute data privacy, zero monthly fees, and strategic scalability. Mainstream cloud providers like Dropbox Business can never offer this level of value because they bill €2,400 a year for the same storage tier while uploading private user files to external cloud networks. Here, the ORICO metabox pulls off the entire magic trick locally inside the office. Running on Ubuntu Server 24.04 and MinIO S3-compatible storage, the system automatically triggers a local Qwen 2.5 VL 7B model to run localized RAG pipelines directly over the user's PDFs and Figma exports. Through this custom setup, designers get access to lightning-fast local cloud storage, zero third-party data tracking, and a smart visual search assistant built right into their private drive. This case study is a textbook example of how accessible hardware combined with a smart setup service can unlock unique niche products that solve real human problems, and you can catch the full assembly pipeline in the video below.

• 
  Tom Alder (@tomaldertweets) reported 25 minutes ago

  In 2009, Dropbox founder Drew Houston took a meeting at Apple HQ thinking it was about a partnership. Steve Jobs opened with an offer to buy his company. Houston, still in his 20s, turned down 9 figures on the spot. Jobs pushed back with a warning: "You're a feature, not a product." If they wouldn't sell, Apple would build a direct competitor themselves. They wouldn't sell. Apple shipped iCloud. A phenomenally successful product, but it didn't kill Dropbox. Dropbox had quietly built the best customer acquisition loop in software history: → Give a friend an invite, you both get free storage. When Apple made the acquisition offer, Dropbox had around 2 million users. By January 2010, 4 million users. By April 2010, users were sending 2.8 million invites a month. 1 every single second. Dropbox's growth curve went ballistic after the Apple discussion: → 50m users by 2011 → 100m users by 2012 → 500m users by 2016 In 2017 they became the fastest software company in history to reach $1 billion ARR. Today: 700m+ registered users and $2.5b a year in revenue - sitting a fraction behind 850 million+ iCloud users. - 🎁 P.S. I turned Dropbox's referral playbook into a free guide - comment "Dropbox" and I'll send it to you.

• 
  Shadow_Vortex_2025 (@Shad0wV0rtex) reported 27 minutes ago

  @FrancoisOlwage @bot I ran into a similar issue just trying to connect Dropbox, ClickUp, and Google Sheets, and all my tokens were already gone.

• 
  M.Ellis (@MEllisPhotograp) reported 28 minutes ago

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

• 
  Jaclyn Forero | UGC & Paid Social Strategist (@jaclynforero) reported 28 minutes ago

  “We need more UGC.” Do you? Or do you currently have 46 videos of attractive women standing in beige kitchens holding your product and saying: “I’m literally obsessed.” Because those are two very different problems. More creators ≠ more creative strategy. You can hire 10 creators, get 30 videos back, and still end up with a very expensive Dropbox folder full of… basically the same ad wearing different earrings. The part that actually matters happens before anyone presses record: Customer research. Different angles worth testing. Hooks that aren’t all “POV: you finally found…” Scripts that provide structure without making a normal human sound like they’re reading the terms and conditions. Casting creators for the concept instead of just asking, “Does her house look expensive?” Enough B-roll that the editor doesn’t have to perform a small miracle in Premiere Pro. And then — this part is apparently controversial — looking at the performance data and using it to decide what to make next. Recently, I led creative strategy for a top medical-grade-skincare brand's paid social campaign across research, concepts, scripting, creator direction, and post-production. Some of the winning creative generated approximately 2.3x ROAS during testing. My biggest takeaway: UGC works a lot better when you stop treating creators like content vending machines and start treating the entire thing like a creative testing system. Anyway, if your current UGC strategy is “hire more people and hope one of them accidentally makes a winner,” I have some thoughts.

• 
  FiL Dev (@FiLHashDev) reported 29 minutes ago

  I’m hesitant to work with Jira again. Co-Founder wants it. My issue is that we don’t have a source of truth. Two brains, agents, & knowledge bases, leaves room for a lot of drift. Any suggestions? I’m thinking GitHub read only repo access might be the vibe. We also use Dropbox sync for artifacts. I just think a third central brain = more tokens and more drift. Might just have to build a full AgentOS.

• 
  Rei (@ReiHerrera) reported 30 minutes ago

  @owldreig @porterrobinson @madeon The problem with them both is they love gatekeeping the rare song behind a bad quality sounding medium so you cannot use it for clean for dj sets. For example Celine,worlds live,shepherdess,etc. at least we had hollowheart on wav and shepherdess wav was on porter’s Dropbox leak🫩