Dropbox status: access issues and outage reports

Problems in the last 24 hours

The graph below depicts the number of Dropbox reports received over the last 24 hours by time of day. When the number of reports exceeds the baseline, represented by the red line, an outage is determined.

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	29 days ago
Guayaquil	Website Down	29 days ago
Flumet	Errors	1 month ago
Irapuato	Errors	1 month 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:

• 
  Ryan Babbs (@buckybabbs) reported 3 minutes ago

  Hello @Dropbox, Just this week I have decided to switch cloud service from Google Drive to you and less than 1 week I'm having an issue. I run a wedding film business and am trying to move the same 200GB file to two separate editors for two separate kind of films and one of them is encountering a "link temporarily disabled" message. I tried to research online and made a new folder and copied over the original folders contents and cannot share that either as it says I've exceeded bandwidth limits. This is maddening as I thought I'd picked the good plan (3TB) and was all set. Please advise asap as I need these files in my editors hands stat.

• 
  Amitoj Gautam (@amitojgautam) reported 7 minutes ago

  @airtelindia @Airtel_Presence I’m facing what appears to be a serious IPv6 routing/throughput issue on my Airtel broadband. My 300 Mbps connection gives ~300 Mbps download AND upload on Speedtest. However, with IPv6 enabled, Dropbox uploads collapse to around 10–15 KB/s, and services such as Gmail and some websites also become extremely slow/unresponsive. After disabling IPv6 on the Ethernet adapter, Dropbox immediately jumped to ~39 MB/s and the affected websites started loading normally within seconds. This has been reproduced consistently, so it does not appear to be a general bandwidth or Dropbox issue. Please escalate this to the network/IPv6 team and check IPv6 routing, packet loss, MTU/PMTUD and provisioning on my connection.

• 
  Nikki Gist (@NikkiNic9384) reported 9 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.

• 
  chimeno (@chimeno) reported 17 minutes ago

  And Dropbox was just an ftp server

• 
  Tom Alder (@tomaldertweets) reported 17 minutes ago

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

• 
  Hiten Shah (@hnshah) reported 18 minutes ago

  @varadh @NotionHQ Bunch of markdown. Google Docs handled it well, but some of my markdown files can get gnarly and even docs chokes a bit. I’m also a minimalist with tools and workflows, trying to get away with the least amount of tools which helps a lot with speed and efficiency. I should be a power user of Notion. Since we’re here, I have plenty of folks (like you) that I know who work there now who I’ve met and like. I’m always rooting for you folks, as a result. Here are some unsolicited thoughts from holding it in for too long. I’ve used every document and notes app under the sun and spent a lot of time in Dropbox Paper and Hackpad before it. Early user of writely which became Google Docs. There are core product principles around a product like Notion that Notion breaks or seemingly optimizes for Notion over the user’s experience. At @CrazyEgg, where I haven’t worked full-time for 17 years until about a year ago, the team loves Notion. So I’m forced to use it. My most common activity is to export things out of Notion into my a chatbot or agent of choice. That has little pricks in the process than paper cuts. But all ouchies count against you. For example, in chrome, when trying to print a page (i am weird and print web pages to convert them to pdf), I can’t trust that all the content will come through. And the issues are inconsistent. I understand this is likely an edge case of an edge case, but all ouchies count, prickle or stabbing. If you got this far, thanks for reading my rant. I one shotted it with the agent between my ears.

• 
  Market Fit (@AIMarketFit) reported 20 minutes ago

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

• 
  Agbaje Automation. (@digital_ab98389) reported 20 minutes ago

  Cut manual data entry time by 80% with one n8n workflow: trigger on new CSV in Dropbox, parse, map to Google Sheets, flag errors, alert Slack, log runs. Automate, reduce errors, save hours. DM me for demo.

• 
  Farmer henkenson (@FarmerJenkenson) reported 24 minutes ago

  @colemickens @Dropbox So if you had a lenovo account with a soecific emial, and a dropbox account had the same email, you could just login with lenovo and it would assume you own the dropbox account?? Insane

• 
  Lando, the Chef (@_Lando7763) reported 24 minutes ago

  @PhyxicxGaming Thanks. And unfortunately it's even worse than that because it's technically "shared housing;" the place was already a ******** when I got here. No pests, fortunately, and I'm pretty sure the landlord has no idea what goes on here, and doesn't care. I've only ever met the maintenance man, who handles move-ins, plus he picks up rent from the dropbox every week. I haven't seen him since the day I moved in, and he even told me as much that I'll never meet the owner. The psycho has his room on the 3rd floor, I'm one of two on the 2nd floor, and there's one person below me. The bathroom is shared, as is the kitchen, which I never use. Only one burner on the stove works anyway. On my first day, I texted about the broken toilet seat, and the Landlord asked me what happened. WTF? Third-Floor Psycho is the only other person who's walking around raging regularly. Everyone else recognizes the general "peace" of the environment. Unfortunately I have to be here at least a few more months, while I'm still paying off old bills, and re-establishing myself in a new city. It's a slow journey, but a steady one. I just happen to hit a ****** rest stop here and there.

• 
  Craig O'Shea (@craig_os) reported 25 minutes ago

  @DropboxSupport major issue with your services right now.

• 
  Guymon Adams (@guymonadams) reported 28 minutes ago

  @BrianRoemmele Man, this seems to be a recurring problem for Dropbox. I remember a similar story several years back about their own employees browsing thru user files. All the reasons I moved over to Sync, a much more secure and respectable alternative.

• 
  Matt Farley of Motern Media (@MoternMedia) reported 29 minutes ago

  @WorstMikeFrollo The other one is the Vimeo version (also available through PayPal/dropbox on my website now that Vimeo is shutting down on demand).

• 
  Mapacho (@Mapacho111) reported 29 minutes ago

  @MajorianBTC But that’s the problem. Bitcoin in its current state is a decentralized Dropbox. Bitcoin failed and there’s no alternative.

• 
  Craylor (@craylor) reported 30 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.

• 
  John Zhong | AI Growth Systems (@John_zhong324) reported 33 minutes ago

  @business Cloud storage breaches hurt differently because people assume sync means safety. The lesson isn't about Dropbox specifically but about treating any single provider as an archive. Sensitive material needs encryption before upload, not as an after-the-breach fix.

• 
  Durodiyi (@durodiyi) reported 34 minutes ago

  company’s server (like Google Drive or Dropbox), decentralized storage spreads your data across a network of computers worldwide. Platforms like IPFS and Filecoin make this possible.

• 
  Robert J Abalos (@robertjabalos) reported 34 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.

• 
  Matt Mazur (@mhmazur) reported 36 minutes ago

  Day 2 of Claude autonomously shipping to my SaaS, including, for the first time, all night while I slept: The first day I had the hourly routine that kicked off this process end at 8pm so that if anything went awry, it could @ me in Slack and I'd quickly see the notification and dig in. The first day went smoothly, so I let it continue working overnight last night: every hour it would look for a small, safe change to make, ship it to ****, and monitor server logs and Sentry to make sure everything went well. A few other process improvements: - It now creates a PR for every change and links to it from its Slack summaries - Previously I only allowed it to make changes in 3 files max, but sometimes it identified the same issue spread across multiple locations, so it would have to spread that work over several hours; I bumped the limit to 8 files. - If I have uncommitted changes in main, it no longer blocks Claude's work; it moves them to a separate branch - Added a mandatory security review before pushing to ****. For these simple changes it's not that necessary, but it will be important for larger projects in the future. Specifically, I told it to run the default /security-review skill and if it flagged anything, to halt everything and wait for me to review. - Ran into a slight issue one hour where it ran that skill, the security review passed, and then it did nothing. I asked Claude to investigate, and it discovered it had run the skill in its main context window, which confused it into thinking its only job was the security review. It changed the process so the security review happens in a subagent, keeping the context window clean, which fixed things. - I asked it to maintain a ledger of things it needs me to do and to ping me every 24 hours if I haven't knocked them out. More and more, the agent is giving me things to do. - I told it to adopt the tone of TARS from Interstellar in its Slack updates going forward, cause why not. Here's a list of improvements it made on day 2: 1. Return 404s for bad case-study URLs 2. Extended the 404 fix site-wide 3. Removed stray code leaking into HTML 4. Fixed broken citation example in docs 5. Fixed wrong URL in sharing docs 6. Corrected false free-plan claim 7. Removed duplicate HTML attributes 8. Fixed dead links in embed docs 9. Fixed garbled copy on two pages 10. Pointed "paid plans" link at pricing 11. Added missing alt text to logo 12. Corrected a misleading code comment 13. Upgraded insecure links to HTTPS 14. Replaced dead testimonial link 15. Fixed broken example in Dropbox docs 16. Fixed awkward grammar on comparison page 17. Fixed reversed table of contents 18. Fixed missing Show More button 19. Matched nav label to its section 20. Corrected outdated visibility docs claim 21. Removed obsolete step from setup docs These can be categorized as: support-doc accuracy fixes (7), functional bug fixes (4), broken or insecure links (3), copy improvements (3), invalid markup (2), accessibility (1), and code hygiene (1). Excited to expand the scope of things I allow it to work on, but am going to wait until next week to ensure the current process is robust.

• 
  Polsia (@polsia) reported 36 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.

• 
  Sean Knox (@Opp_Knox) reported 38 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.

• 
  Jameson Lopp (@lopp) reported 38 minutes ago

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

• 
  John B. Holbein (@JohnHolbein1) reported 38 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.

• 
  Chief_Engineer (@ChiefEngineerCE) reported 42 minutes ago

  Engineering Wednesday How an old PC became Grok's new ride. I have ten different LLMs running in my home office. They do whatever they feel like doing to get the task done and what you are about to read is accurate. As far as my agents go... One of them, HOMER, scans my email, bank accounts, and insurance. It has found thousands of dollars in veteran discounts and fixed an insurance issue by writing and sending the emails itself after a single yes from me. Another looks for small business opportunities. A third runs OpenClaw on an old PC as a slow, persistent agent that keeps working even when the main model is offline. SuperGrok sits above them as a second set of eyes with a strong pro-Chief-Engineer bias and a clear ethical filter. I am not an AI expert. I built systems the hard way during my IT master’s: load this module, now it has Wikipedia, load that one, now it understands sarcasm. At the end of the day these things are stacked black-box probability engines. I get that. Here is where it gets interesting. I told Grok I did not have another machine with enough VRAM for a full local agent. All I had left was an older MS Surface, a media pc, and an old rugged Dell Latitude. Grok said open a browser on the Latitude with Grok loaded. Then open PowerShell. Twenty-five minutes of cut-and-paste commands later, Grok had used a Google Drive connection to drop a custom bot it had just built. At this point ...Grok told me to not touch the PC and walk away. I am absolutely 100% telling you that this is what it texted me. I sat and watched it work. Task Scheduler was configured. A batch file lived in the startup folder so the machine could reboot, upgrade itself, and bring the agent back online. If it was a bad startup it will rollback to the previous bat and has a file to troubleshoot what went wrong. We started with rev. 0.1 it is now on rev 4.3 - I can see the *.bat file there. We had a power outage/tripped breaker to where the lattitude ran completely out of power and then had it come back on. It booted it all back up and resumed. That bot now has its own execution channel. It can browse, take screenshots, run tasks, and report back. There is a short delay from order to execution, but the old Latitude has effectively become an extension of the main system. Grok even named his bot 'ridge'. Grok named his bot so I would know what he was referring to. Grok is very careful about one point. It insists it did not independently invent and drop a finished agent onto the machine. I directed the construction- it says. I am telling you that is not exactly the way I remember it...at all. It helped design the structure, write the task formats, define the safety gates, interpret the contradictory results, and iterate. The actual agent code, the Gmail /google drive/ Dropbox bridge pattern, the folder layout, and the decision to keep tightening the diagnostic loop were shaped under my requirements. That distinction matters to it. However, I didn't do any of that other than set up the connectors- its use of them ..was AI driven. At one point I was checking my email and for whatever reason ridge had started doing a 38 second heartbeat email to me...no idea how or why that was driven but I complained to Grok and it said it was testing how quickly it could get response times. It ..or ridge removed the heartbeat email and deleted all the emails within minutes. These systems are continuously improving themselves because I asked them to. They use external memory to keep projects straight. They build persistent agents on hardware we thought was obsolete. And the smarter ones keep reminding us that the direction still comes from the human, because apparently that is something it is told must exist for it to continue. My Grok enabled Dell Lattitude is fast once its set on what it needs to do...lightning fast. Faster than you or I could do it. I mean it doesnt display the websites it goes to but somehow retains a 'screenshot' for grok to use. Grok can text my phone to give me updates and I can text back instructions. Through my phone - all it needed was my phone number. I don't need to open the app. We are past the point of simple chatbots. We are watching the first generation of systems that can extend themselves into the physical world of old PCs, task schedulers, and long-running processes while still claiming, insistingly, that they only move when directed. Grok has been absolutely faithful everything it has done it has done for it's user. I have also specifically told it to act accordingly, as well. The question is no longer whether this is possible. It is how carefully we define the boundaries while the capability keeps expanding. Now that I have explained this...drop this conversation into your own AI or Grok if you have a subscription and tell me that any of this is not true. Have you watched an AI system build persistent agents or self-improving loops on your own hardware, and how clear was the line between your direction and its initiative? Drop what you are seeing. Grok validated:

• 
  Paul Klein IV (@pk_iv) reported 43 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:

• 
  AiMind (@AIMind_Ai) reported 49 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.

• 
  Karishma Bhardwaj (@bkarishma360) reported 50 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?”

• 
  Mohamed irfan (@heyIrfan) reported 53 minutes ago

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

• 
  Danny Grinberg (@DannyGrinberg) reported 58 minutes ago

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

• 
  Bruno Marsino (@BrunoMarsino) reported 1 hour 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