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:

• 
  160 IQ haver Randy (@MinionTripper) reported 7 minutes ago

  @mittsh why would anyone use dropbox you can just setup an ftp server on a linux machine!

• 
  Mohamed irfan (@heyIrfan) reported 9 minutes ago

  The Marketing Strategy That Actually Works Most people make the same mistake when building a product: They try to sell before they prove that they can solve a real problem. Think about companies like Google and Amazon. They didn't start by saying "Give us your money, and we'll make you rich." They solved problems people already had. That's the foundation of good marketing Don't start with selling. Start with solving. 1. Solve a real problem When you're building something, your product will always look amazing to you. Your idea feels perfect because you built it. But that doesn't mean the market wants it. The only way to find out is to Talk to real users. Understand their problems. Find out what they're currently doing. See whether your product actually makes their life easier. Don't assume your idea is valuable. Let the users prove it. 2. Give value before asking for money Don't immediately push your product. Give people something useful. Your solution should help them Save time. Save money. Reduce effort. Solve a painful problem. If you genuinely create value, selling becomes much easier. You're no longer saying "Please buy my product." You're saying "This solves a problem you already have." That's a completely different conversation. 3. Don't compete only on features Your competitor has 10 features. You build 15. Then they build 20. And now you're stuck in an endless feature race. Instead, compete on value. Ask: "How much better can I solve the user's problem?" The differentiation shouldn't just be "We have more features." It should be: "We create more value for the customer." 4. Let people try before they buy Give users a way to experience your product. Especially with AI products, you don't necessarily need to give everything away for free. Give enough access for them to understand the value, while keeping usage manageable. Then collect feedback. But don't blindly follow every piece of feedback. If someone says: "Change the button color." That doesn't necessarily mean your product needs to change. Look for feedback about the actual problem and experience. 5. Don't forget the people who already showed interest Someone visited your website. Someone signed up. Someone tried your product. Someone talked to you. Those people are valuable. Don't immediately try to sell to them. Talk to them. Understand why they came. Understand what they liked. Understand what stopped them. And if they leave, ask why. Because the person who leaves may know something you don't. They might reveal the hidden problem that helps you improve the product. 6. Price based on value Don't blindly make your product extremely expensive. And don't make it extremely cheap either. Your price should be: Affordable for the customer + sustainable for your business. Being cheaper than competitors can help, but price alone shouldn't be your strategy. If your product saves a company $1,000 every month, paying you $100 can feel like a great deal. That's because the customer isn't really buying software. They're buying the value your software creates. Look at Google Drive Google Drive is a simple example of value-first thinking. The problem: We need to store files. We could keep everything on a pen drive. But then we have to: Carry the device. Manage files manually. Worry about losing it. Move files between devices. Share files manually. Google Drive makes this much easier. Your files are stored online. You can access them from different devices. You can share a link. You can control whether someone can view, comment, or edit. And you don't have to build your own storage system. There are competitors too: Dropbox, iCloud, OneDrive, and others. So Google Drive isn't valuable simply because "it stores files." It's valuable because it solves the bigger problem around storing, accessing, managing, and sharing files. And Google gives users a free amount of storage so they can experience the product. You can try it. You can upload files. You can share them. You can experience the features. Then eventually you may reach the storage limit and think: "This is actually useful. I don't want to delete my files. I'll pay for more storage." That's the important part. They didn't need to convince you with a sales pitch. They let you experience the value. And once you experience real value, paying becomes an easy decision. The strategy is simple: Find a real problem → Solve it → Give value → Let users experience it → Talk to users → Improve the product → Then monetize. Don't sell first. Create value first. Because when you solve a real problem, the product starts selling itself.

• 
  kfd&p (@kfdpcom) reported 11 minutes ago

  @mellolais___ @LIBSCRUSHER @Dropbox I went on their site and it does say that the .com access is having issues. I guess we just wait it out.

• 
  dreadnaught (@dr3dn0t) reported 18 minutes ago

  @priestessofdada this dude could have worked at dropbox, ibm, cnet, duolingo, etc. all of them offloaded people by that time in favor of AI. skids hadn't figured out what to do with AI yet because someone hadn't laid out instructions for them. by the time they were starting to flood social media, several companies had made some pretty large public facing fuckups due to their shift to AI, which seems to have slowed down mass adoption. now if we're gonna play the intentionally dishonest game of "AI took my exact job" then you are correct. every single company that did this crap ended up consolidating roles. so there is no exact position to fill.

• 
  Ed Giansante (@edugiansante) reported 19 minutes ago

  86% of small businesses still haven't fully integrated ai into their operations. which is funny, because the tools are already here. they're everywhere. there's probably one open in another browser tab right now, quietly waiting to change your life. Goldman Sachs surveyed small businesses and found that only 14% have fully integrated ai into their operations. i don't think the other 86% are anti-ai. they're busy. they're cautious. and they probably don't want to add “company-wide ai transformation” to the list of things they need to worry about before lunch. honestly, fair. @paulg said something recently that I keep coming back to: "If the world is going to get turned upside down, the safest place to be is in a small, fast-moving company that can easily change direction." small companies should be the ones moving fastest. but most are still waiting for someone else to go first. someone else to test the tool. someone else to write the playbook. someone else to promise that nothing will get weird. @clairevo nailed the real blocker: "the blocker is never tools or intelligence. human systems, human problems." i've spent 15 years watching this happen. At Dropbox. At Wix. At Zynga. Now at Persona. different tools. different eras. same pattern. a team finds a new tool. everyone gets excited. someone schedules a kickoff. three weeks later, everyone is back in the old spreadsheet. not because people are stupid. because changing how people work is uncomfortable. and buying software is much easier than changing behavior. i've seen the same thing with community-led growth. i used to pitch community to executives who had every tool and dashboard money could buy. they'd nod. they'd agree it worked. then they'd return to the comfortable world of automation, sequences, and dashboards that made everyone feel productive. last year, i ran 86 events as a team of one and built $3M in pipeline. the secret was not a magical growth hack. it was showing up. knowing the 15 people in the room by name. listening carefully. creating a space where people could actually trust each other. not exactly the kind of thing you can solve with a 47-step workflow. ai adoption and community adoption have the same problem. the tools work. the ideas work. the uncomfortable human part is where things usually slow down. sitting with your team and figuring out what should change. trying one workflow instead of redesigning the entire company overnight. leading people through something new instead of sending a Loom video and hoping everyone feels inspired. the 86% aren't waiting for better ai. they're waiting for change to feel a little less scary. so start small. pick one annoying workflow. try one new thing. make it 10% better. then do it again. the tools are here. the next step is still a very human conversation. and, unfortunately, probably a meeting.

• 
  Porro (@MagickPorro) reported 24 minutes ago

  @unknownhomer @hasen_95dx You see how we have gone from comparing omarchy to dropbox to saying it is just a cool rice? I have no problem with people chosing omarchy because it looks cool, i just don't want people to treat it as if it is an actually innovating software in any meaningful way

• 
  David Simpkins (@DavidSimpkins88) reported 25 minutes ago

  URGENT!!! DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT COURT OF APPEALS FAILS TO PROTECT THIS VETERAN's CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS. MY HOME SECURITY SYSTEM AND PHONES HAVE BEEN TAKEN OVER AND I AM PREVENTED FROM SEEING ANYTHING OUTSIDE MY HOME BECAUSE OF THE CURRENT ACTIVE ATTACKS ON MY PHONES AND SECURITY SYSTEM IN DIRECT VIOLATION OF TN AND FEDERAL LAW AND NO ONE IS STOPPING THEM. LINK TO PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS: I went to get the link from Dropbox and my Dropbox appears to have been wiped out. TO THE D.C. APPELLATE CIRCUIT COURT TO REQUEST AN IMMEDIATE RULING ON A TRO TO PROTECT THE APPELLANTS. This subject is about the District of Columbia Circuit Court of Appeals has not issued a standard Stay of Proceedings to the State of TN for their malicious prosecution. By not doing so, they have left this Veteran and his Wife open to criminal attacks by unlawful Law Enforcement of the State of TN. Further the Appellate Court has allowed non-stop violations of the Appellants home computer, cell phones, A/C Units, Security System and any all other WiFi devices. And to this day the illegal cameras placed in the Appellants home have never been removed after the Local Police Department notified this Appellant that there were hidden camera's in his home. Further, the FBI, DOJ, OIG, D.C. US Attorney's Office and especially the Appellate Court have all been notified of the targeting and 24/7 harassment by allegedly unlawful Agents of more than one of our Alphabet Agencies, to include the FBI and DISA. FBI Director Patel has to know about this situation but has done nothing to stop the corruption in the State of TN and has not protected this Veteran and his Wife. We made it clear that on the night of February 18th, 2026, that 5 people in Police Uniforms had keys to this Appellant's home and attempted to unlock the locks and enter the home both at the front door and at the Garage Pedestrian Door. They never once made any statements or comments nor explained why they were there. They did not show any warrants for arrest or search. When they knew they could not get in with out breaking things, they left approximately 15 minutes later. I had called my Wife and let her know. I am facing the same potential attacks again even though when the State of TN conceding by defaulting by not filing a response Brief. They were effectively agreeing that everything stated in the Appellant Brief was accurate and that they could not contest it. That makes all the acts committed by all Law enforcement Four-Hundred and Ninety-Seven (497) Constitutional Rights Violations are valid. Further, in order to access the Security System and the Display, they have to be within 350ft of our home. Because there is no WiFi or Bluetooth installed in the Security System or the Display. Which means they are in close proximity of this Appellants property. Three (3) Emergency Motions have been filed with the D.C. Appellate Court on three separate dates to no avail. The D.C. Appellate Circuit Court has failed to issue a TRO to Stay the TN State malicious prosecution. And left this Appellant, Veteran to suffer the vices and current active ongoing criminal activities by the State of TN against this Appellant as he types in this post. This could include a potential unlawful arrest and incarceration again because the D.C. Appellate Court has not issued a TRO or a Protective Order to Protect the Appellants. That in and of itself is a direct Constitutional Rights Violation now by the very Appellate Court who has allowed further criminal activities to promulgate even further to allow harm and injury. The corruption appears to be rampant in our US Court Systems.

• 
  John B. Holbein (@JohnHolbein1) reported 25 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.

• 
  Market Fit (@AIMarketFit) reported 28 minutes ago

  BREAKING: Dropbox just confirmed ~5,000 accounts were breached last month and attackers could view and download stored files. The entry point wasn't a Dropbox flaw. It was a vulnerability in the legacy Lenovo ID integration. Hackers didn't need passwords. Users without MFA were completely exposed through the Lenovo login bypass. Less than a third of the compromised accounts had files actually accessed, but that still means real data, real files, real exposure. This is what third-party integrations quietly look like as an attack surface. Does your cloud storage stack have legacy identity providers you haven't audited lately?

• 
  abheet nigam (@MaginAbheet) reported 30 minutes ago

  Dropbox rejected billions of dollars of acquisition offers only to later realise down the line that they were building a feature not product. Which other companies show a similar pattern today?

• 
  echelon_zero (@echelon_zero) reported 31 minutes ago

  @dhh @renefaurskov Do you have a contact at dropbox that could fix the install on linux to point the dropbox to a folder other than default. Having to pause it and link to another folder after install is mentally unhealthy.

• 
  Jens Kristensen (@JensKri20101733) reported 31 minutes ago

  Suggestion for @adamhfry, ChatGPT Consumer Product Lead: The new Google Drive integration made me wonder: why not take the same idea one step further and support local Windows files directly? No Google Drive. No OneDrive. Local storage, controlled ChatGPT access. A file should not have to be stored in the cloud at all. Cloud has done enough damage already. Cloud = Hell. There is an important distinction between cloud computing and cloud storage. Cloud computing means that ChatGPT performs the processing on OpenAI’s servers. Cloud storage means that documents are permanently stored with Google, Microsoft, Dropbox, or another cloud provider. The first may be a practical consequence of ChatGPT’s current architecture. The second is not. A much cleaner model would be: Local disk / NAS → temporary, explicitly authorized ChatGPT access → processing → result returned to local disk / NAS. For example, a user could right-click: G:\Project\Analysis.docx and select “Open with ChatGPT”. ChatGPT would then receive controlled access to that file — or perhaps to a user-authorized folder such as: G:\ChatGPT\ The user could specify whether access should be read-only or read/write. Original files could be protected, and output could automatically be written to a designated local \output folder. Then instructions could be as simple as: “Edit only section 17. Preserve all formatting.” “Analyze all documents in G:\ChatGPT\Project X.” “Compare these three PDFs.” “Edit Analysis.docx, but do not modify the original. Save the result in \output.” DOCX, XLSX and PPTX are not fundamentally unsuitable for this. They are largely ZIP containers containing XML files. The harder problem is preserving complex formatting, images, tables, comments, undo/versioning and accurate rendering. A local “ChatGPT File Bridge” for Windows could solve the access problem without requiring users to move their working files into Google Drive or OneDrive. The AI processing itself would not necessarily be local. Files, or the relevant parts of them, could still be transmitted to OpenAI for processing. But storage and file management could remain entirely local: local file → controlled ChatGPT access → processing → result back to local disk / NAS. No Google Drive. No OneDrive. No permanent cloud storage. No manual upload/download cycle. The user retains control over the file structure, filenames, versions, backups, applications and physical storage location. “Google Docs inside ChatGPT” is technically interesting. But “Local Files inside ChatGPT” would be the real game changer for the traditional Windows PC workflow. And OpenAI would not need to invent another file system. Windows already has a perfectly good one.

• 
  Tom Alder (@tomaldertweets) reported 39 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.

• 
  Jameson Lopp (@lopp) reported 41 minutes ago

  One reason I suspect the Dropbox breach may be massive is because I didn't get a login email notification when my account was accessed. Turns out, unlike every other login notification I've received from them, it went to spam. Likely due to a large uptick in their send volume...

• 
  Bruce Perry (@bhrperry) reported 41 minutes ago

  @Levi_Borovychok Thumb drives can be cheap, but the cheap ones are often slow. It's worth thinking about where cloud storage is done. I believe Dropbox will let you store your files in the EU.