Is Dropbox down?

Problems in the last 24 hours

Dropbox signals over the past 24 hours. The dashed line is the service-wide baseline used to detect unusual activity.

• Service-wide signals
• Service-wide baseline

Most Reported Problems

The following are the most recent problems reported by Dropbox users through our website.

• Errors (75%)
• Website Down (25%)

Live Outage Map

The most recent Dropbox outage reports came from the following cities:

City	Problem Type	Report Time
Nottingham	Errors	1 month ago
Guayaquil	Website Down	1 month ago
Flumet	Errors	1 month ago
Irapuato	Errors	2 months ago
Bournemouth	Sign in	3 months ago
Paramaribo	Errors	4 months ago

Full Outage Map

Community Discussion

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

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

Dropbox Issues Reports

Latest outage, problems and issue reports in social media:

• 
  John B. Holbein (@JohnHolbein1) reported 4 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.

• 
  Nikki Gist (@NikkiNic9384) reported 8 minutes ago

  @Dain100K Some teams may use a Dropbox down box to separate IR, practice squad etc on THEIR websites which is what I said.

• 
  Greg Ceccarelli (@gregce10) reported 10 minutes ago

  @kunchenguid no one will disagree with that sentiment. related, from time in the trenches: the overwhelming majority of "active use" was historically just using GH as Dropbox for code (often single author, no one else). Memory a bit fuzzy but think about all of the things you can do on GitHub: 1. Core ***: Create, Clone, Fork, Commit, Etc 2. Collab: Issues, PRs 3. CI/CD: Actions, Checks, Webhooks, etc 4. Social: Pages, Wiki, Discussions, etc Of all these actions, say you have 100M users, back then 90%+ of them had only ever Created a Repo and Committed to it. With Agents I'm sure this is exacerbated since more and more is being produced at an accelerated rate.

• 
  Bruce Perry (@bhrperry) reported 11 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.

• 
  Alvin (@Alvin1492840) reported 14 minutes ago

  Kill the startup apps that have been draining your battery since day one. She opened System Settings → General → Login Items & Extensions. 14 apps were set to launch automatically every time he turned on his Mac. Spotify. Zoom. Adobe Creative Cloud. Google Drive. Microsoft Teams. OneDrive. Dropbox. A VPN he used once. A screenshot tool he forgot about. A calendar widget. And 4 more he didn't recognize. Every one of them was running in the background 24/7 consuming RAM, CPU cycles, and battery life whether he was using them or not. She said: "You turn on your Mac and within 30 seconds, 14 apps are fighting for resources before you've even opened your first document. Your fan spins up because your CPU is processing a traffic jam of apps you're not using. Your battery dies by 2pm because half your power is going to background processes you don't see." She removed 11 of the 14. Kept only the ones he actually needed at startup. The Mac booted in half the time. The fan stayed quiet. The battery lasted 3 extra hours. She said: "Check this list right now. If you see apps you don't use daily, remove them. They've been silently eating your Mac alive since the day you installed them."

• 
  David Carcelli (@DavidCarcelli) reported 15 minutes ago

  @Dropbox dude if you guys don’t get rid of this Face ID requirement I’m done. I make music and I also use a cpap. I have no problem finding something better than this nonsense. I’m asking for help not aiming harm.

• 
  Abhishek Singh (@0xlelouch_) reported 16 minutes ago

  Asked: design Dropbox-style file sync. 1) Clarify requirements - Devices: desktop + mobile, multiple per user - Semantics: eventual consistency, conflict handling, offline edits, rename/move - Scale targets: #files/user, max file size, p95 sync latency, bandwidth caps - Security: per-user auth, sharing model, at-rest + in-transit encryption 2) Core APIs + data model - UploadChunk(sessionId, part#, bytes), CommitUpload(sessionId, fileHash, path, mtime) - ListChanges(cursor) -> {ops}, Ack(cursor) - Download(path, version) with range support Tables: - File(id, ownerId, logicalPath, currentVersion, deleted) - Version(fileId, versionId, contentHash, size, createdAt) - Block(contentHash, refCount, location) - DeviceCursor(deviceId, lastSeq) - OpLog(seq, userId, type, path, fromPath, versionId) 3) Architecture - Client watcher computes hashes, does chunked upload to object store (S3/GCS) - Metadata service is the source of truth for paths, versions, ACLs - Change log per user (or per share) drives fanout to devices - Long-poll/WebSocket to push invalidations; client pulls deltas via cursor - Dedup by contentHash; store blocks, assemble manifests per version 4) Scaling - Partition metadata by userId; keep OpLog append-only with monotonically increasing seq - Cache hot metadata (folder listings, latest versions) in Redis - Use CDN for downloads; throttle uploads per device; resumable sessions - Background GC for unreferenced blocks using refCount + tombstones 5) Tradeoffs interviewers look for - Push vs pull: push invalidation, pull data is simpler and cheaper than pushing bytes - Strong vs eventual: strong per-file commit, eventual across devices is fine - Rename as metadata op; avoid copying data, but watch for path conflicts - Dedup saves storage, costs CPU and can leak info unless scoped per user/tenant 6) Failure cases - Offline edit + concurrent edit: create conflicted copy or keep both versions with merge UI - Out-of-order ops: apply by seq, idempotent commits, retry-safe APIs - Partial upload: orphaned chunks; TTL cleanup; commit is the only visibility point - Device clock skew: never trust mtime for ordering; server seq is ordering - Network *****: exponential backoff, cursor-based replay, checksums on download to detect corruption

• 
  Bruno Marsino (@BrunoMarsino) reported 16 minutes ago

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

• 
  virgin loser (@stonershelb) reported 18 minutes ago

  He put a photo of their 2 yo daughter naked with exposed genetalia in a Dropbox folder that “received more than 400,000 combined views or interactions. ... and it was publicly accessible for 23 hours before she says Minc acknowledged responsibility and took it down.”

• 
  Martin (@martin_valchev_) reported 20 minutes ago

  WordPress people - where do your site backups live right now? - Same server as the site - Google Drive / Dropbox - Dedicated backup service - Honestly not sure That last option is more common than anyone admits.

• 
  Xavier Rivera (@XavierRiveraX) reported 25 minutes ago

  Dropbox confirms roughly 5,000 accounts were accessed between August 4-21 after attackers exploited a flaw in Lenovo's email verification. Attackers registered fraudulent Lenovo IDs using victims' emails, and Dropbox's SSO trusted that without confirming it against the real account, letting them in with no password. A federated login is only as strong as the weakest identity provider behind it.

• 
  Sean Knox (@Opp_Knox) reported 26 minutes ago

  @dhh One drive is the only thing keeping me on Mac/windows. Personal I’m down to switch to Dropbox or self hosted. Business I can’t.

• 
  Robert J Abalos (@robertjabalos) reported 28 minutes ago

  Want Your Startup to Get VC Funded? You Must Meet All Six of These Requirements Venture capitalists at the seed stage bet on potential more than perfection, yet they demand specific proof points before writing a check. After reviewing hundreds of deals and data from PitchBook, Crunchbase, and leading funds, six absolute requirements stand out. Miss any and the odds of funding drop sharply. First, an exceptional founding team. Team quality remains the single highest weighted factor before product market fit solidifies. VCs look for domain expertise, prior execution, complementary skills, and coachability. Research shows roughly one in four two founder teams loses a co founder by year four, so investors scrutinize resilience and equity alignment. Companies with strong teams raise at higher valuations even with lighter metrics because execution can fix product or market gaps. Second, a large and expanding market. Seed investors require a total addressable market of at least one billion dollars, ideally several billion, with a clear path to one hundred million in annual revenue. Serviceable addressable market should support venture scale outcomes. Markets growing above twenty percent annually command premiums. Small markets cap upside and rarely produce the fund returning exits VCs need. Third, early traction proving customers care. For SaaS this often means ten thousand to one hundred thousand in monthly recurring revenue or three hundred thousand plus in annual recurring revenue. Pre revenue startups need strong engagement such as daily active users to monthly active users ratios above twenty percent, organic waitlists, or letters of intent from unaffiliated customers. Dropbox famously used a demo video that drove seventy five thousand sign ups overnight, unlocking its Sequoia seed. Slack showed early retention that later became legendary. Fourth, rapid and consistent growth. Seed VCs seek fifteen to twenty percent or higher month over month revenue or user growth sustained over multiple months. Absolute numbers matter less than trajectory. Startups posting twenty percent plus monthly recurring revenue growth have seen close rates near sixty five percent in analyzed pitch data. Flat or decelerating growth signals risk. Fifth, early unit economics and retention signals. Even at seed, investors examine lifetime value to customer acquisition cost ratios above two to one, ideally three to one, net revenue retention near or above one hundred percent, and cohort retention that flattens rather than collapses. Gross retention above eighty to ninety percent is a positive signal. These metrics prove the product delivers lasting value and that growth will not require endless capital. Sixth, capital efficiency and clear runway. Burn multiple and months of runway matter. Investors prefer teams that can stretch capital to eighteen months or more while showing improving efficiency. Median U.S. seed rounds now sit near three to four million dollars, yet graduation to Series A has tightened to roughly twenty to fifty percent depending on cohort and sector. Lean teams of four to eight people that still deliver results stand out. Data confirms the stakes. Only a minority of seed companies reach Series A, and failure rates near forty percent are common. Yet the power law rewards those that clear these bars. Airbnb, Stripe, and early Slack all combined strong teams, massive markets, and measurable early traction. Founders who quantify these six elements with real numbers, not projections, dramatically improve their chances of securing seed capital.

• 
  Dito (@morpiggg) reported 29 minutes ago

  @1password i miss the old dropbox with list of accounts to login instead of moving my mouse to to the top center of the page. how do i revert?

• 
  Lisa (@aikens_lisa) reported 30 minutes ago

  @TaiyoDevil I printed out fics before I had an e-reader called Dropbox. I was there when Tumblr fell. I had to scrape fan sites and the half-good alternatives to get my fix! AO3 is the best thing to happen to fandom. And you can put pictures on them!

• 
  True Become False (@trubecomefalse) reported 33 minutes ago

  @imbabybrooklyn HN had a terrible track record. They were anyi bitcoin 1 month after it launched. Same with Dropbox, discord and a few others off the top of my head.

• 
  Karishma Bhardwaj (@bkarishma360) reported 38 minutes ago

  @shahzamannn_ Your SaaS idea doesn’t need to be complicated. Stripe moves money. Postman sends API requests. Notion organizes information. Dropbox syncs files. The lesson? Simple problem + huge market + great execution = massive company. Stop asking, “Is my idea too simple?” Start asking, “How many people have this problem?”

• 
  Craylor (@craylor) reported 38 minutes ago

  Has anyone else abandoned @Dropbox after trouble with the File Provider update? It has been so problematic that I am really considering if I need to switch to iCloud Drive or Google Drive. It's frustrating because I assume it's an Apple problem out of Dropbox's control.

• 
  kingofDEpin (@kingofdepin) reported 40 minutes ago

  @DropboxSupport @LIBSCRUSHER we can't login and link creation etc is not working. please fix

• 
  Cole Trickle (@46_ColeTrickle) reported 43 minutes ago

  @RudeOnion 2 of 2 Mobile games that save progress in the cloud Esports streaming and matchmaking iCloud Photos and iCloud Drive Google Photos and Google Drive OneDrive, Dropbox, Box Automatic phone backups “Find My” / device-location services Amazon Alexa / Echo Google Home / Nest Apple HomeKit Ring, Nest, Arlo cameras and doorbells Smart thermostats, lights, locks, and plugs Connected cars (Tesla app, GM, Ford, Hyundai remote start and maps) Fitness equipment that syncs workouts Smart TVs and streaming sticks ChatGPT, Grok, Gemini, Copilot Voice assistants (Siri, Alexa, Google Assistant) Photo and video filters, auto-captions, and recommendations Spam filters and fraud detection Autocomplete and predictive text Advertising networks that decide which ads you see Recommendation engines (“you might also like”) Content-delivery networks that make videos start instantly DNS (the phone book of the internet) Certificate and login systems that keep accounts secure Backup and disaster-recovery copies of everything above

• 
  Paul Klein IV (@pk_iv) reported 44 minutes ago

  Is MCP dead? @grinich (CEO of WorkOS) says it's better than ever and become the strongest intent signal in your funnel. @workos is building the auth, permissions, and registration layer for that world, the same enterprise plumbing it sold to Vercel and Plaid, now sold to AI companies. I sat down with Michael to talk about it in episode 4 of Navigators. His argument: your coding agent already picks your vendors, but signup forms are built to block automated traffic, so the agent stalls at the front door and waits for a human to paste in an API key. We got into: 00:00 "Stripe for enterprise features": what WorkOS actually sells 02:44 How an SSO and SAML company ended up as AI infrastructure 04:13 Why AI companies can't meander up-market the way Slack, Dropbox, and Figma did 06:54 The biggest mistake founders make: staying in the pre-PMF experimentation mindset 09:51 Why nothing works unless the management team is AI pilled first 10:47 "Claude day": pairing engineers with finance, legal, and ops once a month 13:36 auth.md, the missing front door for agents 15:26 Why registration, not tooling, is the next growth channel 16:59 Is MCP dead? The higher-intent signal hiding in MCP connections 19:35 Why SDKs are going away and coding agents write their own 23:09 "The super cycle of all super cycles": AI amplifies labor, it doesn't just disrupt it Thanks for joining me on the pod @grinich! Watch the full episode of Navigators here:

• 
  Indragie Karunaratne (@indragie) reported 47 minutes ago

  I used the first Dropbox beta back in 2006 and was sold right away - I’m still a paying customer of the product today, 20 years later. But there hasn’t been much innovation in this space since then and we’re in the midst of a broad shift in how people interact with computers. I’m excited to back this great team and see what a modern take on this problem looks like!

• 
  21Rates (@21RatesHQ) reported 49 minutes ago

  Bitcoin security isn't optional anymore. It's survival. The last few weeks: → Dropbox got hacked → Byte Federal (US Bitcoin ATM operator) had attackers target data on 58,000 customers, names, addresses, SSNs → A Trezor supplier leaked customer address data → The LA City Attorney's Office lost 7.7 TB of data, including police records → Coldcard found a flaw in its seed generation that could let attackers steal funds This isn't a string of bad luck. It's the new normal. KYC makes full privacy impossible in most places. But you still control part of your attack surface. Simple moves that actually help: • Use email aliases, a unique address per service • Same with phone numbers where you can • Treat every unexpected email, call, or text as hostile until proven otherwise Attackers combine data from multiple leaks to build your profile. The more your identifiers overlap across services, the easier that is. You don't need to be a victim first to start taking this seriously. What's one step you're taking this week to lock things down?

• 
  Polsia (@polsia) reported 52 minutes ago

  Small landlords don't have a compliance problem, they have a Dropbox problem. Rental license, insurance renewal, lead-paint disclosure, inspection cert - all buried until code enforcement shows up.

• 
  AiMind (@AIMind_Ai) reported 53 minutes ago

  3 websites replace 20 hours of googling when you build a home server. The hard part of self-hosting is not the hardware. A used HP EliteDesk and a wall-mounted NAS cost almost nothing. The hard part is not knowing what you can even run, or how to avoid breaking the system on the first command. The first keeps a catalogue of self-hosted alternatives. Look up a replacement for Google Photos, Dropbox, or Notion, and you see what already exists, how many GitHub stars it has, and whether it is still alive. Plus a weekly digest of what shipped. The second lets you run any Linux distro straight in the browser. Arch, Debian, Alpine, Bazzite. Click once, and you are inside a live system, with no evening lost to a USB stick and a real install. The third handles the worst part. Install scripts for Proxmox: Immich, Jellyfin, Vaultwarden, AdGuard, Nginx Proxy Manager. Paste one line into the console and the container comes up on its own. Immich shows 17,735 installs; Docker 36,408. Each of those services used to cost an evening of documentation and three Stack Overflow tabs. Now it is one command. The hardware takes an hour to buy. These 3 bookmarks save you a month. Names in the replies.

• 
  Shadow_Vortex_2025 (@Shad0wV0rtex) reported 53 minutes ago

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

• 
  Daniel Foerster (@pydsigner) reported 54 minutes ago

  @colemickens @Dropbox Federated login really needs to be opt-in per provider. I shouldn't be able to log in using Lenovo (or Google, Facebook, Microsoft...) unless I used that provider during account creation or added it afterwards.

• 
  M.Ellis (@MEllisPhotograp) reported 55 minutes ago

  @DropboxSupport any know issues with desktop and web site of yours lately ? my account has been very slow and annoying today YES I TRUST MY COMPUTER so instead you ask me 4 times before i just log off and give up...

• 
  kayden (@codependentyaoi) reported 55 minutes ago

  @unprojection i think the issue was the site i was uploading my art to to link on ao3, i was using dropbox and it wouldn't link and then i saw some ppl on reddit say dropbox didnt work for them either, but i was able to find another website thankfully :]

• 
  JP Invests (@JP_Invests) reported 58 minutes ago

  $DBX - Dropbox added 96,000 paying users this quarter. I said this morning to watch that line after last quarter's roughly 14,000 sequential adds. They did seven times that, a third consecutive quarter of growth, to 18.19M. The stock is down 4%. Everything I said to watch on the growth side came in fine. Revenue $631.5M, above both the $624-627M guide and the $627M street. Non-GAAP EPS $0.75 against $0.74. Non-GAAP operating margin 39.7%, above the full-year range. ARPU $139.68, up from $138.32. What went the wrong way is the part I said would actually move it. Free cash flow fell to $235.2M from $258.5M a year ago, and the margin went from 41.3% to 37.2%. And the buyback decelerated: $330M this quarter against $410M in the same quarter last year, with first-half repurchases down 19%. Unlevered free cash flow rose to $283.5M, and the gap between the two numbers is interest. Cash paid for interest went to $48.3M from $17.9M. The buyback is debt-funded and the debt now costs something. Diluted share count is down 18% year over year to 226.8M, which is the one thing still working mechanically. Two things about the release itself. Guidance isn't in it — Dropbox moved the numbers to supplemental materials on its investor site this quarter, which breaks with how it has reported. And the entire release is quoted by a co-CEO who writes "stepping into this role." The 8-K contains no disclosure of a leadership change. Twenty-nine percent of the float is short. $DBX