Dropbox is in your Office(blog.dropbox.com)
blog.dropbox.com
Dropbox is in your Office
https://blog.dropbox.com/2014/11/dropbox-microsoft-office-partnership/?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=promoted-update&utm_term=English&utm_content=announcement&utm_campaign=microsoft-dropbox-partnership
209 comments
Last time I looked at the Google Drive terms of service -- which was admittedly years ago (I ought to check again) -- they were basically unacceptable for me because Google were demanding a perpetual non-exclusive copyright license to everything I stored there which would have allowed for unlimited reproduction or use for any purpose Google felt like making of it. It looked like your standard boilerplate land-grab, and unfortunately it was incompatible with my business (which involves selling exclusive (but time and scope limited) licenses to use copyrighted materials I produce.)
Dropbox's copyright clause was much more tightly drawn and not incompatible with my business model.
Dropbox's copyright clause was much more tightly drawn and not incompatible with my business model.
This comment made me curious. When I went to check the actual terms of service, I found this line:
"Some of our Services allow you to upload, submit, store, send or receive content. You retain ownership of any intellectual property rights that you hold in that content. In short, what belongs to you stays yours."
which is suddenly followed up by:
"When you upload, submit, store, send or receive content to or through our Services, you give Google (and those we work with) a worldwide license to use, host, store, reproduce, modify, create derivative works (such as those resulting from translations, adaptations or other changes we make so that your content works better with our Services), communicate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute such content. The rights you grant in this license are for the limited purpose of operating, promoting, and improving our Services, and to develop new ones. This license continues even if you stop using our Services (for example, for a business listing you have added to Google Maps)."
So while you own your intellectual property, Google does take a copy of all rights pertinent to the work. It's hard for me to say why Google would do this; alienating what I'd imagine to be a significant userbase of content generators.
Source: http://www.google.com/policies/terms/
"Some of our Services allow you to upload, submit, store, send or receive content. You retain ownership of any intellectual property rights that you hold in that content. In short, what belongs to you stays yours."
which is suddenly followed up by:
"When you upload, submit, store, send or receive content to or through our Services, you give Google (and those we work with) a worldwide license to use, host, store, reproduce, modify, create derivative works (such as those resulting from translations, adaptations or other changes we make so that your content works better with our Services), communicate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute such content. The rights you grant in this license are for the limited purpose of operating, promoting, and improving our Services, and to develop new ones. This license continues even if you stop using our Services (for example, for a business listing you have added to Google Maps)."
So while you own your intellectual property, Google does take a copy of all rights pertinent to the work. It's hard for me to say why Google would do this; alienating what I'd imagine to be a significant userbase of content generators.
Source: http://www.google.com/policies/terms/
> Google does take a copy of all rights pertinent to the work.
A limited copy, only for use in "operating, promoting, and improving our Services, and to develop new ones."
In other words, you agree to let everything you upload to Google be used for testing.
Anyone who's alienated by this shouldn't be putting content on non-owned servers in the first place. "The Cloud" isn't for your secret documents, it's for your family photos.
A limited copy, only for use in "operating, promoting, and improving our Services, and to develop new ones."
In other words, you agree to let everything you upload to Google be used for testing.
Anyone who's alienated by this shouldn't be putting content on non-owned servers in the first place. "The Cloud" isn't for your secret documents, it's for your family photos.
The show-stoppers are "... promoting and improving our Services, and to develop new ones".
Suppose I use Google Drive to store my current project, a big-ass novel that's going to see simultaneous publication by major publishers in a number of markets around the world. Google could in principle give it away for free to new sign-ups for their service as a promotional goodie.
Or "develop new ones" ... well, we already have Google Books: I am not sanguine about the prospect of a not-yet-published book of mine suddenly showing up in Google Books, or a next-generation incarnation of Google Books, without my say-so (or an agreement to pay royalties, because that's what I earn my living from).
These uses are certainly unlikely but they're not impossible, and that big-ass slab of lawyer-speak in the middle of the ToS is a show-stopper for me. Which is a shame, because if they'd just bothered to specify that the rights are for the limited purpose of [yadda] internal development of new services -- i.e. as test data -- I'd be fine with that.
Dropbox is a paid-for service that specifically supports business uses. It's ToS is acceptable. Google Drive is mostly used for free, and as the old saying puts it: if you aren't paying for the product, you are the product.
Suppose I use Google Drive to store my current project, a big-ass novel that's going to see simultaneous publication by major publishers in a number of markets around the world. Google could in principle give it away for free to new sign-ups for their service as a promotional goodie.
Or "develop new ones" ... well, we already have Google Books: I am not sanguine about the prospect of a not-yet-published book of mine suddenly showing up in Google Books, or a next-generation incarnation of Google Books, without my say-so (or an agreement to pay royalties, because that's what I earn my living from).
These uses are certainly unlikely but they're not impossible, and that big-ass slab of lawyer-speak in the middle of the ToS is a show-stopper for me. Which is a shame, because if they'd just bothered to specify that the rights are for the limited purpose of [yadda] internal development of new services -- i.e. as test data -- I'd be fine with that.
Dropbox is a paid-for service that specifically supports business uses. It's ToS is acceptable. Google Drive is mostly used for free, and as the old saying puts it: if you aren't paying for the product, you are the product.
> Google could in principle give it away for free to new sign-ups for their service as a promotional goodie.
No they couldn't, because other parts of their ToS explicitly let you retain control over your copyright. You'd sue them, and win. Also, they'd lose all their customers and probably shut down the Google Drive program entirely.
Maybe we should just try and find a lawyer to interpret this impartially (something you should do anyway if you're trying to pick a ToS that's "compatible" with your needs -- you really don't want to get burned by a tricky ToS, do you?), but as far as I understand the whole point of this passage is to allow Google to use your data to test their products, e.g. facial recognition, translation, etc., in an automated fashion.
Exactly like Gmail, I am guessing the contents of individual user's drive accounts are probably scraped at regular intervals by machines for all sorts of purposes. This passage is a CYA for that activity. They're not looking for sneaky ways to get your book into their store.
I'm not saying "use Google Drive over Dropbox!", because I don't give a hoot. But the Drive ToS isn't why you shouldn't use Google Drive.
No they couldn't, because other parts of their ToS explicitly let you retain control over your copyright. You'd sue them, and win. Also, they'd lose all their customers and probably shut down the Google Drive program entirely.
Maybe we should just try and find a lawyer to interpret this impartially (something you should do anyway if you're trying to pick a ToS that's "compatible" with your needs -- you really don't want to get burned by a tricky ToS, do you?), but as far as I understand the whole point of this passage is to allow Google to use your data to test their products, e.g. facial recognition, translation, etc., in an automated fashion.
Exactly like Gmail, I am guessing the contents of individual user's drive accounts are probably scraped at regular intervals by machines for all sorts of purposes. This passage is a CYA for that activity. They're not looking for sneaky ways to get your book into their store.
I'm not saying "use Google Drive over Dropbox!", because I don't give a hoot. But the Drive ToS isn't why you shouldn't use Google Drive.
> No they couldn't
Of course they could, because you gave them a license to do so.
Facebook and Google do this explicitly already: they use your images and written content, which you presumably have the original copyright on, to sell their products and services (customized ads and the like). They haven't done it with Stross' novel yet, but the legal issues are the same.
http://techcrunch.com/2013/10/11/you-make-ads-better/
Of course they could, because you gave them a license to do so.
Facebook and Google do this explicitly already: they use your images and written content, which you presumably have the original copyright on, to sell their products and services (customized ads and the like). They haven't done it with Stross' novel yet, but the legal issues are the same.
http://techcrunch.com/2013/10/11/you-make-ads-better/
> Of course they could, because you gave them a license to do so.
No you didn't. Like I said, they explicitly say you retain copyright control. That trumps any implied loss of copyright control.
No you didn't. Like I said, they explicitly say you retain copyright control. That trumps any implied loss of copyright control.
The quoted license: "The rights you grant in this license are for the limited purpose of operating, promoting, and improving our Services, and to develop new ones."
That sounds like it should be limiting but a new service can be "giving away copies of stuff we found in peoples gdrives". Would everyone hate Google for that, yes; would that break their ToS, no.
You retain copyright control, means they can't sell [other] licenses and such like actions - but you already gave them and their associates free use [wrt copyright] of your works stored on their systems. They don't need more rights to publish, modify, reproduce, etc., etc..
Indeed they can even effective sub-license by selling the right to be one of "those we work with", then the license you agree to also applies to that other company.
Such ToS enable evil to be done.
It is difficult to construct a ToS that allows the company to do everything it needs to without enabling this sort of thing. They don't want to leave the option you can sue them for copyright infringement if, for example, they share your copyright avatar image with a company that's using an embedded comment system or such like activities.
One can of course encrypt data before sending it to a cloud storage company.
That sounds like it should be limiting but a new service can be "giving away copies of stuff we found in peoples gdrives". Would everyone hate Google for that, yes; would that break their ToS, no.
You retain copyright control, means they can't sell [other] licenses and such like actions - but you already gave them and their associates free use [wrt copyright] of your works stored on their systems. They don't need more rights to publish, modify, reproduce, etc., etc..
Indeed they can even effective sub-license by selling the right to be one of "those we work with", then the license you agree to also applies to that other company.
Such ToS enable evil to be done.
It is difficult to construct a ToS that allows the company to do everything it needs to without enabling this sort of thing. They don't want to leave the option you can sue them for copyright infringement if, for example, they share your copyright avatar image with a company that's using an embedded comment system or such like activities.
One can of course encrypt data before sending it to a cloud storage company.
Another part of the quoted license:
> You retain ownership of any intellectual property rights that you hold in that content. In short, what belongs to you stays yours.
Whatever anything else says in the ToS, this wins. Explicit statements always trump implications in contracts. You take that to court, show the judge, and you're on your way to dinner with your winnings later that very same day.
This ToS is not capable of Evil in the way you say. Period.
> You retain ownership of any intellectual property rights that you hold in that content. In short, what belongs to you stays yours.
Whatever anything else says in the ToS, this wins. Explicit statements always trump implications in contracts. You take that to court, show the judge, and you're on your way to dinner with your winnings later that very same day.
This ToS is not capable of Evil in the way you say. Period.
It explicitly says you license them('Google') the content for promoting their services.
Is this some kind of irrevocable license that you, as copyright holder, must adhere to forever and always?
Or is it a license you can revoke at any time?
Or is it a license you can revoke at any time?
Also, they'd lose all their customers and probably shut down the Google Drive program entirely
While I agree with your thesis on the whole, I am sad to say that this probably won't happen. People will just think, "Well, I'm not writing a novel so this doesn't affect me" and keep on using it.
My interpretation of what they are trying to say is that they may need to modify stuff by wrapping headers on it and so on to make it work with their systems, but they won't steal your ideas or give them away.
While I agree with your thesis on the whole, I am sad to say that this probably won't happen. People will just think, "Well, I'm not writing a novel so this doesn't affect me" and keep on using it.
My interpretation of what they are trying to say is that they may need to modify stuff by wrapping headers on it and so on to make it work with their systems, but they won't steal your ideas or give them away.
My interpretation of what they are trying to say is that they may need to modify stuff by wrapping headers on it and so on to make it work with their systems,
Or: we make tape backups of data and tapes a shipped to some storage and we cannot guarantee that your data is immediately erased from all our infrastructure (including types) the moment after you delete it.
Or: we make tape backups of data and tapes a shipped to some storage and we cannot guarantee that your data is immediately erased from all our infrastructure (including types) the moment after you delete it.
There is a youtube video from a google engineer that talks about their backup.
Your data is (supposedly) encrypted with your private key. They can't guarantee that all copies are deleted, but they can (at least in theory) delete the key to make the data inaccessible. Whether you believe them or not is a different story...
Your data is (supposedly) encrypted with your private key. They can't guarantee that all copies are deleted, but they can (at least in theory) delete the key to make the data inaccessible. Whether you believe them or not is a different story...
Yeah, Google would never just, I don't know, start republishing a bunch of books and, when authors or their representitaves complain, say, "see you in court." That's inconcievable!
You really think Google would take an unpublished manuscript from someone's GDrive and put it in their bookstore?
>A limited copy, only for use in "operating, promoting, and improving our Services, and to develop new ones
also to:
>reproduce, modify, create derivative works (such as those resulting from translations, adaptations or other changes we make so that your content works better with our Services), communicate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute such content
So not even family photos because you lose the right to keep them private.
also to:
>reproduce, modify, create derivative works (such as those resulting from translations, adaptations or other changes we make so that your content works better with our Services), communicate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute such content
So not even family photos because you lose the right to keep them private.
"The Cloud" isn't for your secret documents, it's for your family photos.
Which is why putting your business documents on Dropbox may not be a good idea.
Also, it's kind of slow. Somebody at TechShop accidentally put a Dropbox folder in an Autodesk Inventor search list and slowed down launch of the program by several minutes.
Which is why putting your business documents on Dropbox may not be a good idea.
Also, it's kind of slow. Somebody at TechShop accidentally put a Dropbox folder in an Autodesk Inventor search list and slowed down launch of the program by several minutes.
I think many people in comments to your post not understand that "can" is not equal to "will". The rights they require are mostly for avoiding issues with some countries, testing, avoiding responsibility during hack attacks, removing duplicates and editing some files that could be browser open.
If anyone thinks that Google, multi billion company would take your photo and publish it to make money out of it - you are creating issues to yourself.
Its Google, they are all about your data, statistics, behaviours and keywords. Not about stealing things and using your photos/artwork for marketing purposes.
Cloud = trust. No matter if its Dropbox or Skydrive or Box. On the end of the day you either trust company or not. No matter what's in TOS.
If anyone thinks that Google, multi billion company would take your photo and publish it to make money out of it - you are creating issues to yourself.
Its Google, they are all about your data, statistics, behaviours and keywords. Not about stealing things and using your photos/artwork for marketing purposes.
Cloud = trust. No matter if its Dropbox or Skydrive or Box. On the end of the day you either trust company or not. No matter what's in TOS.
"publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute such content"
Well that's terrifying given that my phone uploads every picture I take to Google's services.
Well that's terrifying given that my phone uploads every picture I take to Google's services.
[deleted]
[deleted]
Have you had any sync problems with OneDrive or Google Drive? After switching to OneDrive from Dropbox six months ago I've continuously had problems with OneDrive syncing correctly and resolving conflicts by silently dumping a copy of the file into the directory for me to sort out later. Worse it does this silently so I often don't know a sync conflict happened.
Trying out Zocalo now with better results but was curious if anyone else encountered this issue with OneDrive or if my experience was unique.
Trying out Zocalo now with better results but was curious if anyone else encountered this issue with OneDrive or if my experience was unique.
I had all sorts of sync problems with OneDrive so I canned it. I now keep a central SVN repository with all my stuff in it.
I use svn because TortoiseSVN tooling allows diff/merge of documents, it is centralised so there is a single source of truth and it works over WevDAV/http so i can access it on my mobile device if need be (I avoid this where possible and just use it as a tether).
I use svn because TortoiseSVN tooling allows diff/merge of documents, it is centralised so there is a single source of truth and it works over WevDAV/http so i can access it on my mobile device if need be (I avoid this where possible and just use it as a tether).
I used Google Drive extensively, but found the desktop client lacking reliability. I switched to Syncdocs [1] which syncs to Google Drive more robustly and is way faster. Google's storage pricing beats Dropbox, but their client software does not.
[1] http://syncdocs.com
[1] http://syncdocs.com
I can't remember having those sync issues. I do remember a couple of times it was hard to tell if it had finished synching as it seemed to be doing nothing visually, that's the only issue I remember.
Will look into Zocalo to see what they offer.
Will look into Zocalo to see what they offer.
it depends if your talking about one drive for business or personal.
OneDrive for business is built on top of SharePoint and is well known to have a multitude of limitations and issues and I would never recommend anyone use it.
Onedrive personal I hear is much more reliable but I've not had any personal experience with it.
I use Google drive and have found it to be very reliable, when i have the odd sync issue (fails to sync 1-5 files out of 3000 files/150gb) i just click retry and successfully uploads them.
OneDrive for business is built on top of SharePoint and is well known to have a multitude of limitations and issues and I would never recommend anyone use it.
Onedrive personal I hear is much more reliable but I've not had any personal experience with it.
I use Google drive and have found it to be very reliable, when i have the odd sync issue (fails to sync 1-5 files out of 3000 files/150gb) i just click retry and successfully uploads them.
To the best of my knowledge, the only provider listed above with an official linux client is Dropbox. It works for me.
Google Drive has a very unofficial yet supposedly usable 3rd party client at http://www.lbreda.com/grive/
Google Drive has a very unofficial yet supposedly usable 3rd party client at http://www.lbreda.com/grive/
Unfortunately, development seems to have stalled:
https://github.com/Grive/grive
There is also a FUSE client written in OCaml:
https://github.com/astrada/google-drive-ocamlfuse
https://github.com/Grive/grive
There is also a FUSE client written in OCaml:
https://github.com/astrada/google-drive-ocamlfuse
I hear insync has a decent Google drive client for Linux.
Not free but its pretty cheap
Not free but its pretty cheap
Is google drive an actual alternative to box/dropbox? I thought that if you uploaded (say) a .doc file, google drive changed it to a google docs file (which could be re-exported via docs->Word converter rather being copied out untransformed). This made me concerned that uploaded pictures would be down sampled etc.
I also seem to remember that if you click on a google doc file it opens a browser window rather than launching an app on your machine.
So I stopped trying to use it on my laptop. This system may have changed, or there may have been a way to avoid this.
I do use google docs/drive but only as a way to use docs that others have created and shared with me. I have noticed on iOS that opening docs shows a different set of files than opening the google drive app, which also does not reassure me.
It would be interesting to me if it were a true DB replacement. Of course since I now have to use Office 365 I just got unlimited Onedrive capacity so I may switch to that.
I also seem to remember that if you click on a google doc file it opens a browser window rather than launching an app on your machine.
So I stopped trying to use it on my laptop. This system may have changed, or there may have been a way to avoid this.
I do use google docs/drive but only as a way to use docs that others have created and shared with me. I have noticed on iOS that opening docs shows a different set of files than opening the google drive app, which also does not reassure me.
It would be interesting to me if it were a true DB replacement. Of course since I now have to use Office 365 I just got unlimited Onedrive capacity so I may switch to that.
There is an option (and has been for a while now) to upload files to Google Drive without converting them to Google's formats. So your opaque binary blobs will stay opaque binary blobs.
That said, in my experience, Google Drive and Dropbox still differ on the handling of corner cases (e.g. symlinks, permissions and extended attributes, etc.). At the time I tested, Google Drive was lagging in most of these cases, but that may have improved by now.
At any rate: check that your use cases actually work before moving all your data!
That said, in my experience, Google Drive and Dropbox still differ on the handling of corner cases (e.g. symlinks, permissions and extended attributes, etc.). At the time I tested, Google Drive was lagging in most of these cases, but that may have improved by now.
At any rate: check that your use cases actually work before moving all your data!
While Drive can do document conversions and it might even do that by default you can certainly tell it not to.
Geeez, can we just stop with this, you are now giving your data to google which has your search history, email etc! If you going to have this stance, build your own solution and host it along with your own email and search engine. I personally fear facebook, google more than the NSA.
For me it's not so much about the NSA as about her involvement in torture and war around the world. I know me "rage quitting" dropbox doesn't change a thing but it means something to me.
I know my own solution would be the best and so an actual question. Would it make sense to use private servers (think AWS) to run something custom made or would that just be exactly the same (they would still be able to read my stuff)?
I know my own solution would be the best and so an actual question. Would it make sense to use private servers (think AWS) to run something custom made or would that just be exactly the same (they would still be able to read my stuff)?
[deleted]
Dropbox, OneDrive, Google Drive, Box. They are all the same when it comes to your privacy to be honest. I wouldn't "trust" any of them with very private things. I use them for convenience of stuff I want easy access to/share with family but don't want to just stick up in the public internet for all to see.
Dropbox lied about their access to your documents. Dropbox disabled password authentication for their entire system for a bit, by accident. I'd say that makes them worse than competitors. The whole Ms Rice thing might also make it worse for some people.
We should be using Tarsnap. If only they had a windows client (which I use as a hypervisor, as it has better power and driver support on laptops).
We should be using Tarsnap. If only they had a windows client (which I use as a hypervisor, as it has better power and driver support on laptops).
privacy and secrecy are one problem with those, but why do I have to manually put relevant files in special-sync folders?
btsync makes more sense to me
btsync makes more sense to me
I find that Google Drive just doesn't work as well. We routinely get files that are "unable to sync" but manually retrying them works. I've seen it happen on OS X and Windows. I think it just doesn't handle locked files as well. Dropbox "just works."
I stopped using Dropbox ... and have been using a mix of Google Drive and OneDrive and I must say I like them a lot better.
For a somewhat less platform-independent definition of better. Neither of those has Linux-clients, which for some people is a no-go.
Which means I'll stick to Dropbox for a good while more.
For a somewhat less platform-independent definition of better. Neither of those has Linux-clients, which for some people is a no-go.
Which means I'll stick to Dropbox for a good while more.
Exactly the same reason why I stick with Dropbox
Even saying that I'm still occasionally let down by how much of a power drain it is. Even wrote a utility to manage it (shameless plug) https://github.com/joaomsa/powermonius
Even saying that I'm still occasionally let down by how much of a power drain it is. Even wrote a utility to manage it (shameless plug) https://github.com/joaomsa/powermonius
I've been using Insync as my Google Drive client on linux, and it seems to work ok.
you can use their web version for platform independent needs.
I never tried these guys as their pricing seemed too good to be true.
https://hubic.com/
Maybe someone can comment if they've used them in anger.
https://hubic.com/
Maybe someone can comment if they've used them in anger.
They are run by what is arguably the largest hosting provider[1]. It's definitely going to "work" mind you, but outside of EU the speeds may be a tad abysmal.
It's standard OpenStack storage and it's possible to mount FUSE drive, so no terrible client. I use it and have no complaints, just don't expect 1 ms read times as a mounted drive, etc.
[1] http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2009/05/14/whos-... (ctrl+f ovh)
It's standard OpenStack storage and it's possible to mount FUSE drive, so no terrible client. I use it and have no complaints, just don't expect 1 ms read times as a mounted drive, etc.
[1] http://www.datacenterknowledge.com/archives/2009/05/14/whos-... (ctrl+f ovh)
unrelated to the topic, but I had to smile at "a tad abysmal".
I use https://www.copy.com/home/.
Copy is ran by Barracuda. My only current grief is the lack of 2 factor authentication, but they have stated that is on the near roadmap.
Copy is ran by Barracuda. My only current grief is the lack of 2 factor authentication, but they have stated that is on the near roadmap.
Yeah, I use it and like it a lot so far. It's 20 GB free with a referral. I got mine up to 65 GB.
Does google drive have syncing folders on all systems like dropbox where I can just drag and drop? windows, mac, linux, android, ios? I actually don't know, not being sarcastic or anything.
They do. I think this is a fair question because it's not very well popularized. But it works great.
Google Drive has no Linux client. There are only unofficial clients.
Also, on my Macs Google Drive regularly crashes and is not able to upload some files (usually retrying works). With Dropbox I never had such problems.
Also, on my Macs Google Drive regularly crashes and is not able to upload some files (usually retrying works). With Dropbox I never had such problems.
* Disclaimer: I currently have roughly 19GB for free on Dropbox through 5 years of hunting for promos. I've used about a quarter of it.
Dropbox is more modular, IMO. I've seen some cool tricks to run websites, backup Instagram photos, etc, all from Dropbox.
Dropbox is more modular, IMO. I've seen some cool tricks to run websites, backup Instagram photos, etc, all from Dropbox.
I use www.Copy.com. It is a real alternate to Dropbox with more free space.
>>Are there any other real alternatives you could recommend to give them a try?.
Dropbox has a native linux client which can not be said for either OneDrive or Google Drive.
I use a mix of Dropbox and BTSync right now
Dropbox has a native linux client which can not be said for either OneDrive or Google Drive.
I use a mix of Dropbox and BTSync right now
There is onedrive-d, but it's in very early development and can be a bit buggy. Fortunately the bugs manifest in duplicate files, not missing files, but it's a bit of a hassle to mange after a while.
https://github.com/xybu/onedrive-d
https://github.com/xybu/onedrive-d
guys
archived storage on physical media you own
it's science
That's the end of my half-troll/half-serious response.
archived storage on physical media you own
it's science
That's the end of my half-troll/half-serious response.
Isn't Box fully HIPAA-compliant?
That's so silly. Condi Rice is no worse than Zuckerberg or the Google people. If anyone thinks that Google or Facebook are somehow bastions of personal privacy, you're delusional. Condi Rice is actually an honorable person. I may disagree with her, but I don't have any doubts about her integrity -- contrasted with Google and Facebook.
As to your question about alternatives, I am starting to use Apple's iCloud Drive. Pretty cool so far.
I admittedly use Google products, but I am under no illusion that anything Google has, is likely fair game for the government.
As to your question about alternatives, I am starting to use Apple's iCloud Drive. Pretty cool so far.
I admittedly use Google products, but I am under no illusion that anything Google has, is likely fair game for the government.
Have you read the actual arguments at http://www.drop-dropbox.com/?
Being involved in the gov't that started the terror scare and almost dragging my country in a disastrous war is quite something different than trying to nudge me into signing up for Google+. Torture, honorable, seriously??!
Being involved in the gov't that started the terror scare and almost dragging my country in a disastrous war is quite something different than trying to nudge me into signing up for Google+. Torture, honorable, seriously??!
I think this is wonderful news.
I'm really tired of having multiple cloud accounts for different types of media. Getting files between the different versions requires me stopping at a desktop to move to the desktop and then back up.
At least this gets rid of one of those steps. Now I just wish there were a way to take xlsx's from dropbox on the iphone and send it to my work email without it coming as a shared link. I work in a locked down, regulated environment that can't open dropbox links. (finance)
I'm really tired of having multiple cloud accounts for different types of media. Getting files between the different versions requires me stopping at a desktop to move to the desktop and then back up.
At least this gets rid of one of those steps. Now I just wish there were a way to take xlsx's from dropbox on the iphone and send it to my work email without it coming as a shared link. I work in a locked down, regulated environment that can't open dropbox links. (finance)
I am genuinely curious if you are unable to open any link or is the restriction specific to Dropbox? And what is the reason for this restriction?
specific to dropbox type of sites, including external email sites that company data could be dumped out of a secure environment.
Kudos to Microsoft for being open to partnering with Dropbox, as this new functionality appears to overlap with OneDrive. I hope this is another example of MS being more open and flexible after the recent leadership change.
Between this and Band I'm actually impressed with Microsoft.
While it was new at the time of it's release, Dropbox has fallen behind in usability and has sorely needed to effectively break into being a more collaborative platform. While I don't know the numbers, I can imagine SkyDrive hasn't exactly picked up with users.
All around this benefits both companies.
While it was new at the time of it's release, Dropbox has fallen behind in usability and has sorely needed to effectively break into being a more collaborative platform. While I don't know the numbers, I can imagine SkyDrive hasn't exactly picked up with users.
All around this benefits both companies.
One of the screenshots here shows a user storing both personal and business documents under the same account. Is it no longer the case with Dropbox that if you link your work and personal account, and your employer removes your work credentials, then all your personal files get deleted?
That is no longer the case. Using Dropbox for Business gives you two separate boxes and the admin for the business one cannot see or access the files from your personal one.
Integration between Box and Office was announced at BoxWorks in September, so this shouldn't be a shocker: http://techcrunch.com/2014/09/03/box-pushes-its-office-365-i...
As the Microsoftie in this thread I feel compelled to point out that you don't need an extensive partnership with us to integrate with office.
And I'm not talking about the plugin development hell (never had to work with it, but that seemed, erm, "difficult"). Feel free to reach out to me if you have questions, or just read the docs yourself (http://dev.office.com/).
And I'm not talking about the plugin development hell (never had to work with it, but that seemed, erm, "difficult"). Feel free to reach out to me if you have questions, or just read the docs yourself (http://dev.office.com/).
Quick question: why aren't there any code samples [0] in C/C++? It would be nice to at least have a documented C++ WinRT API to work with for those of us that still write native desktop applications/services. I'm sure other folks across the company would agree ;)
[0]: http://dev.office.com/code-samples
[0]: http://dev.office.com/code-samples
Take this as my own personal opinion, but before I went back into engineering, I worked with a bunch of developers out there to integrate with all kinds of our stuff - and outside of game development, C/C++ isn't the most popular choice. We have some code samples [0], but I see what you mean.
The office team moving away from the old plugin model and opening up the gates for JS apps and REST APIs made life dramatically easier for a lot of folks. So I assume that samples were written with the most popular choices in mind. Internally, C++ is king [0], of course.
It's also worth pointing out that we always accept code samples from the community :)
[0]: https://code.msdn.microsoft.com/office/site/search?f%5B0%5D.... [1]: http://cppcon.org/bonus-talk-cxx-in-ms-office-2014/
The office team moving away from the old plugin model and opening up the gates for JS apps and REST APIs made life dramatically easier for a lot of folks. So I assume that samples were written with the most popular choices in mind. Internally, C++ is king [0], of course.
It's also worth pointing out that we always accept code samples from the community :)
[0]: https://code.msdn.microsoft.com/office/site/search?f%5B0%5D.... [1]: http://cppcon.org/bonus-talk-cxx-in-ms-office-2014/
Whoa, hell just froze over. I wonder how the OneDrive team feels about this? This kind of a decision was made at the highest levels of the company.
Office is THE cash cow, OneDrive is (probably) a loss leader. Anything that can be done to ensure Office's continued near ubiquity, reduce usage friction, and shore up beach heads against competitors looking for an area to drive a wedge in will be done.
Well, that's really a new Microsoft.
Just a short while ago, anything that could be done to make their products more integrated, and increase lock-in would be done. It didn't really matter if the benefited product made money or not. (For a very visible blow, look at the Windows Phone and Windows 8.)
It's great to see that changing.
Just a short while ago, anything that could be done to make their products more integrated, and increase lock-in would be done. It didn't really matter if the benefited product made money or not. (For a very visible blow, look at the Windows Phone and Windows 8.)
It's great to see that changing.
OneDrive on Windows 8+ requires you to use an MS Account for your entire Windows session. So I'd have to pick a short password and do smart card support to use it. That's some pretty lame and obvious forced integration.
Office has always been the exception to that rule. Look at the long, long, long history of Office on Mac.
Why would they feel bad? They probably want to have a successful product not because the user has no option but for its own merits.
Try that line on Bill Gates in his prime.
Things are different around here. Teams are expected to deliver great products on their own, not rely on some artificial lock-in to force adoption. You see this all over - we offer Linux on Azure, you can federate AD with Google Apps, we release dozens of apps for iOS and Android, and we are opening up many many APIs for rich integration. (Opinion my own obviously).
This has been the official line for a while but it has never been that way when it actually matters (ie. Windows and Office).
That's why some people are pleasantly surprised by this.
That's why some people are pleasantly surprised by this.
I liked your comment and voted you up but Microsoft's Linux on Azure is really weird. It's obvious there's a windows thing somewhere up in the higher levels because of the way certs are done and ports are used. It's all very non-linuxy. If Microsoft is going to do something with linux they should do it right.
Fair points, and I have to say I'm pretty happy with the direction MS is going in these days. I have to say that an Office 365 subscription would be really nice to have, but is just too pricey. Dropbox integration is a nice feature, but is it enough? Maybe one of these days.
The more integrations, the better....
It sounds more like Microsoft wanting to bring Dropbox in to its influence area. Possible acquisition, lobbying strategy or marketing stunt sounds right.
No it sounds like Microsoft wants its users to use Office documents as opposed to Google Drive.
Box and Dropbox support office formats which makes sense why they'd partner with them to perpetuate this usage.
Box and Dropbox support office formats which makes sense why they'd partner with them to perpetuate this usage.
Kind of like what Microsoft did to Facebook.
Microsoft integrating with competitor's products, this sounds news to me.
A really good move, for both companies.
It's a good move for Microsoft, but it's not entirely obvious if this is a good move for dropbox or the storage ecosystem.
For example, Box is also working with Microsoft: http://content.box.com/box-for-office-365 -- I would expect integrations with other platforms in the future as well. If the consumer experience is driven around Office apps rather than around the Dropbox app, then at one point the cloud storage solutions truly become interchangeable.
For example, Box is also working with Microsoft: http://content.box.com/box-for-office-365 -- I would expect integrations with other platforms in the future as well. If the consumer experience is driven around Office apps rather than around the Dropbox app, then at one point the cloud storage solutions truly become interchangeable.
> then at one point the cloud storage solutions truly become interchangeable
I remember one famous Steve saying to Drew Houston that Dropbox was a feature rather than a product. I'd say the need for such a thing as Dropbox made "Dropbox as a standalone product" possible, but in a world where every service starts having its own integrated "cloud" backup service, storage and sync do start looking like a feature.
I remember one famous Steve saying to Drew Houston that Dropbox was a feature rather than a product. I'd say the need for such a thing as Dropbox made "Dropbox as a standalone product" possible, but in a world where every service starts having its own integrated "cloud" backup service, storage and sync do start looking like a feature.
>Microsoft integrating with competitor's products, this sounds news to me.
Or as it was previously known, "Embrace".
Or as it was previously known, "Embrace".
Indeed.
Embrace. Integrate Office with it. Extend. Buy DropBox. Extinguish. Merge DropBox with OneDrive.
Wow didn't expect this comment to bring on the downvotes.
Embrace. Integrate Office with it. Extend. Buy DropBox. Extinguish. Merge DropBox with OneDrive.
Wow didn't expect this comment to bring on the downvotes.
That isn't the original meaning of the term "Embrace. Extend. Extinguish." which harks back to the Microsoft monopoly trial:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish
> The strategy's three phases are:[11]
> Embrace: Development of software substantially compatible with a competing product, or implementing a public standard.
> Extend: Addition and promotion of features not supported by the competing product or part of the standard, creating interoperability problems for customers who try to use the 'simple' standard.
> Extinguish: When extensions become a de facto standard because of their dominant market share, they marginalize competitors that do not or cannot support the new extensions.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Embrace,_extend_and_extinguish
> The strategy's three phases are:[11]
> Embrace: Development of software substantially compatible with a competing product, or implementing a public standard.
> Extend: Addition and promotion of features not supported by the competing product or part of the standard, creating interoperability problems for customers who try to use the 'simple' standard.
> Extinguish: When extensions become a de facto standard because of their dominant market share, they marginalize competitors that do not or cannot support the new extensions.
True. This is the "new Microsoft" EmExEx meaning.
And how is this different from what every major tech company attempts to do?
Oh, this is great news. Dropbox is a great product (no offense, OneDrive), and it'll make the entire Office Workflow a great deal cleaner and easier.
I'm also glad to see integration across cloud services. I think this will improve the consumer experience.
I'm also glad to see integration across cloud services. I think this will improve the consumer experience.
OneDrive(1)
Hey Folks. Thomas from IDrive. Just wanted to point out that we offer private key encryption to our users. That means no one, not even Condoleezza Rice, can access your data except you.
This is an interesting move from Microsoft.
It will create some competition for OneDrive. But Office 365 subscribers now get unlimited OneDrive space as part of the subscription.
My bet is Dropbox integration might get some Dropbox users to buy Office 365. When they realize they get unlimited OneDrive space they might switch to OneDrive.
Seems like a good move to be honest.
It will create some competition for OneDrive. But Office 365 subscribers now get unlimited OneDrive space as part of the subscription.
My bet is Dropbox integration might get some Dropbox users to buy Office 365. When they realize they get unlimited OneDrive space they might switch to OneDrive.
Seems like a good move to be honest.
We know that much of the world relies on a combination of
Dropbox and Microsoft Office to get work done. In fact,
Dropbox is home to over 35 billion Office documents,
spreadsheets, and presentations.
How could they run their service without this access?
See Tarsnap. Good cryptography means you don't have to trust the hosting provider. Obviously Dropbox doesn't offer that so then all we have left is how much we trust Dropbox not to look, and to treat their customers' data privacy as sacrosanct. Apparently that's not the case either, since they are scanning your folder content for marketing purposes.
those numbers also mean it is much harder to find anything in it or easier for you to hide shit.
This is great news! Although I imagine this will complicate things for those organisations that block access to Dropbox :)
Very interesting, just wondering but do people think this benefits one company more than the other?
I originally thought Microsoft as its a great reason to keep Word relevant by teaming up with such a used storage platform and not succumbing to Google docs, but is that offset by dropbox being able to enter the enterprise world?
I originally thought Microsoft as its a great reason to keep Word relevant by teaming up with such a used storage platform and not succumbing to Google docs, but is that offset by dropbox being able to enter the enterprise world?
As an Office customer and a Dropbox customer, I can't help but have mixed feelings. Office already has "direct" OneDrive integration and it's pretty useless, how could it be any better on Dropbox?
The whole thing about Dropbox is that just works. Files are files, folders are folders, if I move them about they move, etc. The only problem with Dropbox and Office is how Office locks the files so they're only synced after I close the Office program, not after every Ctrl+S. Fix that, and it's integrated.
The whole "save in the cloud" nonsense that desktop Office programs have these days feels like a mistake. I can understand how with iOS's "no files" design, this is the only way forward, but on desktop? Please let it stop.
The whole thing about Dropbox is that just works. Files are files, folders are folders, if I move them about they move, etc. The only problem with Dropbox and Office is how Office locks the files so they're only synced after I close the Office program, not after every Ctrl+S. Fix that, and it's integrated.
The whole "save in the cloud" nonsense that desktop Office programs have these days feels like a mistake. I can understand how with iOS's "no files" design, this is the only way forward, but on desktop? Please let it stop.
> I can understand how with iOS's "no files" design, this is the only way forward, but on desktop? Please let it stop.
Apparently mobile is the future and the desktop experience must be crippled to unify it with the mobile experience.
Personally, I don't understand how anyone gets real work done on tablets and phones. Sure there are some pretty silos, but trying to move data between silos is usually a nightmare.
Apparently mobile is the future and the desktop experience must be crippled to unify it with the mobile experience.
Personally, I don't understand how anyone gets real work done on tablets and phones. Sure there are some pretty silos, but trying to move data between silos is usually a nightmare.
> and the desktop experience must be crippled to unify it
Windows crippled their desktop experience for Windows 8 and 8.1 and are reversing it in Windows 10. No other operating system crippled their system in this way. So must is an unwarranted intensifier. Mistakes were made, things were learned, what you're saying isn't true.
Windows crippled their desktop experience for Windows 8 and 8.1 and are reversing it in Windows 10. No other operating system crippled their system in this way. So must is an unwarranted intensifier. Mistakes were made, things were learned, what you're saying isn't true.
What I think is the future for workstations and laptops is a web-integrated OS. Take Chrome OS as an example. These devices become more and more powerful as more and more of our data moves into the cloud.
I don't think anyone actually reviews, comments on or edits large documents on a tablet. That would be a nightmare. The most I've found bearable when reviewing papers on a tablet is highlighting. On a laptop you have the power of a full keyboard, which I can use to comfortably compose this comment, yet my laptop has almost no internal storage and all my documents are stored on the cloud.
This move is important for maintaining relevant, but I do think the insistence on tablets and phones is missing the whole of point of us making the data mobile.
I don't think anyone actually reviews, comments on or edits large documents on a tablet. That would be a nightmare. The most I've found bearable when reviewing papers on a tablet is highlighting. On a laptop you have the power of a full keyboard, which I can use to comfortably compose this comment, yet my laptop has almost no internal storage and all my documents are stored on the cloud.
This move is important for maintaining relevant, but I do think the insistence on tablets and phones is missing the whole of point of us making the data mobile.
> Personally, I don't understand how anyone gets real work done on tablets and phones.
I think very few people do, aside from simple tasks like sending emails.
I think very few people do, aside from simple tasks like sending emails.
> Office already has "direct" OneDrive integration and it's pretty useless, how could it be any better on Dropbox?
> The whole "save in the cloud" nonsense that desktop Office programs have these days feels like a mistake.
I feel exactly the opposite way. As a student, I have all of my schoolwork stored on OneDrive and I don't know how I would live without it anymore. I can access all of my documents from any computer via onedrive.com (very helpful when printing for free in a computer lab) and I can check and edit OneNote notebooks from my mobile device. I don't understand what you mean by desktop Office going for a "no files" design because it seems to be the opposite in my view.
> The only problem with Dropbox and Office is how Office locks the files so they're only synced after I close the Office program, not after every Ctrl+S. Fix that, and it's integrated.
OneDrive can sync files that are being edited with an Office program. With this news, I'm sure Dropbox will have the same functionality soon.
> The whole "save in the cloud" nonsense that desktop Office programs have these days feels like a mistake.
I feel exactly the opposite way. As a student, I have all of my schoolwork stored on OneDrive and I don't know how I would live without it anymore. I can access all of my documents from any computer via onedrive.com (very helpful when printing for free in a computer lab) and I can check and edit OneNote notebooks from my mobile device. I don't understand what you mean by desktop Office going for a "no files" design because it seems to be the opposite in my view.
> The only problem with Dropbox and Office is how Office locks the files so they're only synced after I close the Office program, not after every Ctrl+S. Fix that, and it's integrated.
OneDrive can sync files that are being edited with an Office program. With this news, I'm sure Dropbox will have the same functionality soon.
> Office already has "direct" OneDrive integration and it's pretty useless, how could it be any better on Dropbox?
Useless?
Across my phone, tablet, laptop, and desktop, I would hardly call cloud file syncing useless.
Useless?
Across my phone, tablet, laptop, and desktop, I would hardly call cloud file syncing useless.
Well fortunately there are no changes happening to how it already works. It's just added features if you want them, if you don't then don't use them.
It's interesting that the images show the Office app being used on an iPad instead of a Surface.
This is very peculiar. From past Dropbox acquisitions, one can extrapolate they're almost certainly working on online collaboration tools. I wonder if Dropbox is using this as a way to gain footholds in large enterprise.
Of course. Partnering with OEM's like Dell and integration in Office gives you access to more users and revenue.
Considering the content of other revelations in the form of "X is in your Y" (and the general "I'm in your X, Y-ing your Zs" meme), this seems like an odd choice for a positive article.
The managed file transfer sector is hot and there is no winner yet. Even a YC company called WireOver [1] is working in this space.
A little bit precient, my company developed a free Outlook add-on to send dropbox files as attachments [2] in 2012.
- [1] http://www.wireover.com/
- [2] http://blog.nektra.com/main/2012/05/23/integrating-dropbox-w...
A little bit precient, my company developed a free Outlook add-on to send dropbox files as attachments [2] in 2012.
- [1] http://www.wireover.com/
- [2] http://blog.nektra.com/main/2012/05/23/integrating-dropbox-w...
Dropbox isn't in my office although I really like Dropbox. However, legal compliance is important in an office environment and Dropbox simply does not provide the necessary data privacy to store business secrets or staff records.
Sorry, Dropbox.
(Yeah, alternatives are a problem: Wuala is dying and Spideroak isn't much better easier. Tresorit might be a future alternative but in spite of having their current version published as 2.x, they have still some way to go …)
Sorry, Dropbox.
(Yeah, alternatives are a problem: Wuala is dying and Spideroak isn't much better easier. Tresorit might be a future alternative but in spite of having their current version published as 2.x, they have still some way to go …)
I wonder if this is an exclusive deal (no Google Apps).
Dropbox's big benefit for me, their pricing and unethical board members aside, is the sheer number of ancillary services that it works with. Odds are if some random desktop or mobile app has implemented a sync-between-devices service, it's using Dropbox.
That feature is more important to me than just the file storage. Google Drive will become a lot more useful once developers start picking it up.
That feature is more important to me than just the file storage. Google Drive will become a lot more useful once developers start picking it up.
Good move. Will we see Dropbox part of MS soon?
Drew didn't sell to Steve Jobs, why would he sell to Microsoft?
Presumably because Microsoft will make a better offer.
It's possible that it is becoming a more difficult space to compete in. There are now several companies (MS, Google) that can use it as a mechanism for lock-in or subsidize the costs in another way. If Dropbox wants to compete, their margins over AWS pricing will get very thin, and Google et al can still undercut them.
Correct! Actually what's coming is free or unlimited storage from MS and Google as Levie has pointed out awhile ago.
When that happens the only way Box or Dropbox makes money is from businesses because MS and Google will want you in their eco-system.
When that happens the only way Box or Dropbox makes money is from businesses because MS and Google will want you in their eco-system.
I seem to remember them rejecting Google too so I highly doubt it.
For anyone looking for an Open Source alternative:
https://owncloud.org
https://owncloud.org
I'm looking forward to accessing Dropbox files from the Office app and saving new files to Dropbox.
Why does nobody ever mention BitTorrent sync as an alternative in these discussions? Is there some reason why it's not favoured that I have missed?
Edit: Just in case this reads as baiting somehow, it's not it's a genuine question.
I'm surprised by Microsoft's move here. Why would Microsoft not use OneDrive instead of Dropbox? Dropbox is surely a great product but Microsoft has something similar already. Am I missing something?
My guess: you either push for universal adoption of Office and Office formats or OneDrive. Office is a bigger deal for Microsoft than OneDrive so they went with the former.
[deleted]
So, how long until Microsoft buys Dropbox? Seems kind of strange that they would not be integrating OneDrive into Office rather than Dropbox.
Ugh, I hope it doesn't get acquired by Microsoft, of all companies. I use Dropbox specifically because it doesn't try to be too much, which makes it extremely flexible. In fact I use it for a million things other than file sharing.
My hope is that will never happend. It's just hope.
Since FoxPro many years ago, there is not a single acquisition by Microsoft that turned in a great product or an improvement to the end user (please, include in this scope Groove Networks, whichi was great at that time).
> Since FoxPro many years ago, there is not a single acquisition by Microsoft that turned in a great product or an improvement to the end user
Plenty of FoxPro stuff ended up in SQL Server. Client cursor engine is the first thing that comes to mind (RDO, too, IIRC). The product itself was allowed to languish, but the good parts went into other things.
But for the most part I'd say you're spot on. I can't think of anything else that ultimately went on better things under Microsoft's flag, or benefited other products with the acquired product's technology.
Plenty of FoxPro stuff ended up in SQL Server. Client cursor engine is the first thing that comes to mind (RDO, too, IIRC). The product itself was allowed to languish, but the good parts went into other things.
But for the most part I'd say you're spot on. I can't think of anything else that ultimately went on better things under Microsoft's flag, or benefited other products with the acquired product's technology.
There's lots of good Microsoft acquisitions since FoxPro. Like:
- Visio
- Bungie Software (Halo)
- Groove
etc...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisition...
- Visio
- Bungie Software (Halo)
- Groove
etc...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mergers_and_acquisition...
Yeah but has any of it got better?
Skype, Halo, Minecraft? I think not.
Skype, Halo, Minecraft? I think not.
Onedrive is deep in Office. Latest version defaults to trying to get you to save on your OneDrive
I really wish I could edit .txt files in the iOS Dropbox app instead. I wonder how much it will increase the app size.
That's great news, though a little late. The new iOS 8 document picker allows this in a transparent manner for any storage provider supporting it.
Edit: here's the documentation: https://developer.apple.com/library/ios/documentation/FileMa...
Edit: here's the documentation: https://developer.apple.com/library/ios/documentation/FileMa...
So does this ability to edit in the Dropbox app mean I no longer have any need to buy the iOS versions of Office?
Condoleezza Rice is in your Office
Does this increase the chances that Microsoft will try to buy Dropbox in the future?
Wait. This does not make sense given that MS already provides OneDrive.
"Dropbox is home to over 35 billion Office documents, spreadsheets, and presentations."
So they're reading the files in Dropbox and its contents to know they're Office documents?
So they're reading the files in Dropbox and its contents to know they're Office documents?
It's unlikely that they're trawling your uploaded content. Dropbox does some amount of preprocessing (e.g., to allow document preview and photo thumbnails), which also collects information like MIME type. I would assume they simply ran an aggregate query against this sort of metadata, or collected these stats at the time of upload.
[deleted]
Why would anyone send anything important into a 3rd party cloud storage? Even if you encrypt your files before sending? Really why?
Convenience. People need to get stuff done and sharing/syncing is often required.
Most of people don't have time/knowledge to setup any shared file storage.
Most of people don't have time/knowledge to setup any shared file storage.
we use exchange + dropbox, so this will be a nice feature
DB has now become boring. MS is a boring company.
bye bye box.net?
There are options out there (that don't have ties to the US military-industrial complex). Check out the free WPS Office. The 2014 beta version has free online backup too: http://www.wps.com/
Does this mean Condoleezza Rice will be able to see everything that I'm editing in Office??
Yet another (succesful) attempt of Office to stay integrated into every household. I wish the entire Office suite would kust die over night but sadly it is too settled. There is no competition either or severely crippled.
Well, there's Open Office, Libre Office (both free) and Scrivener (paid), and tons of high end professional typesetting software - I'd say there's plenty of competition, but Office is winning because so far it's still the most accessible and useful for most people. It may be that it's the best of a bad lot, but I still choose it over LibreOffice etc.
[deleted]
Dropbox is banned on my office network. Therefore, at least for me, this is a bit useless.
Didn't SunOS have pretty much exactly this in 1985?
It's sad to see things like this being touted as "new".
It's sad to see things like this being touted as "new".
To me this sounds very much like "Microsoft is buying Dropbox in the next 6 months"...
What would Microsoft want Dropbox for? They don't have any infrastructure Microsoft would want (MS runs Azure, while Dropbox just rents off AWS), Microsoft has OneDrive clients for most of the platforms Dropbox is on... it doesn't seem to me that Dropbox has anything Microsoft can't just add to their own service.
1. Market reach, it's where the customers are. Compare the sheer number of apps that have native Dropbox integration, with those that have OneDrive. While it's far from scientific, nearly everyone I know has a Dropbox account - very few have a OneDrive account.
2. It makes their own OneDrive service seem even more competitive. Why pay for Dropbox when you can buy Office365 for about the same price and get unlimited storage?
2. It makes their own OneDrive service seem even more competitive. Why pay for Dropbox when you can buy Office365 for about the same price and get unlimited storage?
They could feasibly even create slopes that could pull dropbox into renting in Azure to achieve specific value-adds with MS integration. Overall, it looks like a plus for consumers with not a specific downside being described by anyone (yet?).
Users and paying customers?
They could make them switch to Azure like they made Hotmail switch from BSD to NT
Not sure how is this good news for Dropbox?
MS is giving office 365 customer free unlimited cloud storage.
Now M$ can tell their office (probably soon to be office 365 ) customers: "Good News, we have dropbox support for you, but BTW checkout out our unlimited cloud storage for free too."
For me, it is a bit like MS in 90 said we have strong competitor call Netscape while pre install IE for free to kill Netscape. It is assimilation strategy from the old play book.
Dropbox has little choose on this as Box are doing it and their enterprise customers might also demand it. They have to the poison pill.
MS is giving office 365 customer free unlimited cloud storage.
Now M$ can tell their office (probably soon to be office 365 ) customers: "Good News, we have dropbox support for you, but BTW checkout out our unlimited cloud storage for free too."
For me, it is a bit like MS in 90 said we have strong competitor call Netscape while pre install IE for free to kill Netscape. It is assimilation strategy from the old play book.
Dropbox has little choose on this as Box are doing it and their enterprise customers might also demand it. They have to the poison pill.
It's good for Dropbox, because they can push further into the enterprise market. When business users try to decide between Dropbox and OneDrive, Office integration won't be an issue for Dropbox any more.
Dropbox has its own merits over OneDrive. OneDrive is not as friendly and feature-complete as Dropbox is. And Dropbox has far better APIs when it comes to integrating with other services.
And as far as Microsoft is concerned, the partnership improves people's productivity.
Dropbox has its own merits over OneDrive. OneDrive is not as friendly and feature-complete as Dropbox is. And Dropbox has far better APIs when it comes to integrating with other services.
And as far as Microsoft is concerned, the partnership improves people's productivity.
What? That makes no sense.
Dropbox has moved from "no interoperability with Office" to "interoperability with Office". How can that be a bad thing?
Dropbox has moved from "no interoperability with Office" to "interoperability with Office". How can that be a bad thing?
a bit like MS in 90
don't you mean M$ there :P No offense meant, but you know, it's a bit difficult to take people serious when they use terms like that.
don't you mean M$ there :P No offense meant, but you know, it's a bit difficult to take people serious when they use terms like that.
[deleted]
For me, the fact that Microsoft worked directly with the FBI to integrate OneDrive into PRISM makes the whole product something I would never touch, so it's great to see alternatives picking up the slack.
http://cryptome.org/2014/11/ms-onedrive-nsa-prism.htm
http://cryptome.org/2014/11/ms-onedrive-nsa-prism.htm
All the major cloud vendors are surveillance collaborators.
... and I have to ask: do they have any choice? Can you say no to the national security state? If I were in charge of a company with employees who have families and fiscal responsibilities, I can't say that I could. I'm sure any request from those quarters comes with an implied "we wouldn't want anything bad to happen to your company, now would we?"
The only way I can imagine a company saying no is if it were privately held and the largest investors were on board, and most of these companies are public. Being public makes you subject to all kinds of "soft power."
... and I have to ask: do they have any choice? Can you say no to the national security state? If I were in charge of a company with employees who have families and fiscal responsibilities, I can't say that I could. I'm sure any request from those quarters comes with an implied "we wouldn't want anything bad to happen to your company, now would we?"
The only way I can imagine a company saying no is if it were privately held and the largest investors were on board, and most of these companies are public. Being public makes you subject to all kinds of "soft power."
this is a political problem, but can also be addressed as an engineering problem: https://leastauthority.com/ and https://www.tahoe-lafs.org/
[deleted]
Dropbox also has to hand your data over upon receiving a court order. The only difference is Microsoft is less likely to bungle the request.
well maybe Dropbox isn't so much better
http://www.wired.com/2014/04/dropbox-rice-controversy/
http://www.drop-dropbox.com/
http://www.wired.com/2014/04/dropbox-rice-controversy/
http://www.drop-dropbox.com/
I hope Microsoft and Dropbox both improve their security, but Dropbox has a history of lying to customers when it comes to the security of its products, e.g. http://www.wired.com/2011/05/dropbox-ftc/
Are there any other real alternatives you could recommend to give them a try?.