Dropbox Sync does not natively support Apple Silicon
dropboxforum.com
dropboxforum.com
In general, not sure if we should keep posting this about every Dropbox mention. Comments like this is hardly intellectually stimulating and might fit better at Reddit rather than HN.
I smiled.
This 'news' isn't either, yet it keeps getting posted without moderation. I think it's better left in the Dropbox forums.
Enterprise software doesn't support feature X.
User requests feature X, gets told no.
User posts to a news site, to try and get more votes for feature X.
Dropbox clearly has a lot more going for it than "it's managed FTP!"
Part of it's enduring quality is how we can all relate to being so retrospectively wrong like this (I know I can! A/B tests are a constant reminder). I think bringing it up now and then is a gentle reminder to keep a positive community :)
Mounting (s)ftp(s) and using it as a local folder does some things, but fails at the basics. Eg, if I upload a 50gb file (and actually manage to get it to upload all the way without crashing), how can I checksum verify what I uploaded without it costing me 50gb in downloading and time?
There's plenty more edgecases, but suffice to say, there's a reason why tools like rclone & rsync exist - copy and paste does not cut it for a lot of uses, especially when mixing large files, remote servers and (even good) internet connections.
Stupid, out of touch, unrealistic.
Here I was thinking that most Dropbox customers (at least the ones that pay big money) were on Windows, but maybe I'm wrong. Since you seem to have insights into Dropbox's userbase, could you share the raw numbers you're sitting on? Percentage wise of course.
Now is it as significant as windows users? I’m sure it is not. But it seems silly that a major tech company would just dismiss it altogether.
Macs are ~15% of the market, and Apple silicon is a subgroup of that which will gradually increase until it makes up virtually the whole group over a timespan of several years (basically, how long do people keep machines running). It will never be the only mac platform unless you mean supported platform, which will still take quite a few years.
So no: Macs, and Macs on Apple silicon, are a part of the market, but they're a fraction and a fraction of a fraction.
In some places. In others no. Depends on the industry really, and country.
> But it seems silly that a major tech company would just dismiss it altogether
We don't know how Dropbox's userbase looks like. If most of their profits come from large enterprises on Windows, then they will focus on those users mostly, since Dropbox is a company and companies always (most of the time) just follow the money.
Well, more than that. They recently discontinued intel MacBooks, entirely.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29017086
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29025027
They were one of the first who offered these 0-byte placeholders, and they rely on a kernel driver, which is only available on both Windows and macOS (but not Linux).
OneDrive [0] and Box [1] are moving away from their implementations and switching to Apple's File Provider API. Their motive might be less development effort, and the official API might be good enough. Still, I wonder whether the deprecation of 3rd party kernel extensions might also be a reason to switch to such a "thin client".
Interestingly, Apple did something similar on Windows [2]: They are now using Microsoft's OneDrive implementation for their iCloud file sync client.
Now I am wondering what Dropbox will do. Is maintaining their kernel extension still feasible on macOS?
[0] https://techcommunity.microsoft.com/t5/microsoft-onedrive-bl...
[1] https://blog.box.com/get-more-secure-seamless-box-drive-expe...
[2] https://blogs.windows.com/windowsexperience/2019/06/11/apple...
Not having Apple Silicon support means that they're effectively telling everyone "we won't support Macs" in 5 years.
Apple will kill Rosetta 2 at some point, just like they did with Rosetta 1 and my bet is sooner rather than later.
If Dropbox doesn't support Macs, they seem to think that the work to bring Dropbox to Apple Silicon will be more expensive than the revenue they get from Mac users.
With all that - Dropbox does have some technical issues at the kernel layer that they need to address with Apple and that's also something that a support person can't really know.
The original version of Rosetta was based on QuickTransit and licensed from Transitive, so Apple paid for every version of MacOS that included it.
This version of Rosetta was created in-house instead of licensed from a third party, so there is no cost benefit to dropping it quickly.
1) No overlay icons in the finder (see https://github.com/SamSchott/maestral/issues/443)
2) No incremental sync for large files where just a few blocks change (the API does not provide this)
3) No support for extended file attributes (so you cannot sync .app bundles)
Is there a list of major devtools not functional on Apple Silicon?
source: https://www.dropboxforum.com/t5/Dropbox-ideas/Apple-Silicon-...
Does anybody really believe this?
For something that only has to Sync files do I really need the full power of an m1 processor. Even if it's running slower by the emulation layer, I was not able to notice anything. I even did a bit of stress testing where I was editing a text file in two places at once to see what happened, and Dropbox synced everything within seconds.
In my experience: yes. Photoshop under Rosetta (before their Apple Silicon release) was faster on my M1 than it was on my old 2016 MBP, despite the emulation.
Yes! It’s 100% Intel code being emulated or transcribed. You can see which is which in your Activity Monitor.
I really want the new M1 pro, but I'd really like to keep Microsoft Game pass as that's where I do most of my gaming. I need local game installs, while browser streaming is amazing it's not the same .
It also was more performant running in a VM on last year's MacBook Air than running natively on Microsoft's flagship hardware.
Yes, this is such a non-issue.
Issue is not the sync speed, but general use of resources.
A lot of times it is due to direct or indirect dependencies. Before the M1 there weren't many ARMv8 AArch64 users. Only a couple of distros starting providing ARMv8 AArch recently and even then not a lot of their packages could be built for that target.
Hardly translatable to most non-java software on distros.
I guess Ryzen should be called "AMD Silicon" instead and any binary not compiled with at least `-march=znver1` features should be considered "Not having native support of AMD Silicon"
* Original programmer has since moved on, and as per industry standard there was no hand-off and code is poorly documented
* The team in charge of this is busy delivering features/fixing bugs for whale clients
* The product organisation down prioritizes it because the PM wants to build a shiny thing that gets them promoted
I'm trying to remain impartial here, but so long as the majority of the desktop market share stays on x86, there won't really be much financial incentive for developers to port things to ARM. We had the same issue a decade ago when the Raspberry Pi hit markets, with hardly enough software to get it running desktop Linux. Fast forward to today, and people still don't really care all that much.
Especially closed source tracking libraries from all over.