Show HN: I made an app people call "Airdrop for Android"

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

An indie developer has launched Ubidrop, a paid Mac–Android file transfer utility marketed as “AirDrop for Android,” prompting scrutiny of both the branding and the value proposition. Commenters point out that it lacks key AirDrop features like automatic ad‑hoc connections and true offline proximity sharing, and note that Google’s Nearby Share/Quick Share plus numerous free, open source tools (LocalSend, Syncthing, KDE Connect, Snapdrop, etc.) already address most local transfer needs. The exchange broadens into a critique of subscription-style pricing for simple utilities and a reflection on why seamless, cross‑platform local file sharing remains fragmented despite longstanding technical solutions.

Outdated positioning & platform changes

  • Several commenters note the marketing copy is dated (mentions 2022) and ignores Google’s recent Nearby Share → Quick Share update.
  • Criticism that the app calls itself “AirDrop for Android” without matching core AirDrop behaviors (e.g., ad‑hoc/offline transfers, no shared Wi‑Fi requirement).

Existing transfer options & workflows

  • Many users say USB/MTP on Windows/Linux is sufficient: Android appears as a drive, DCIM/Pictures can be copied with EXIF and timestamps intact.
  • Mac users complain about poor MTP support and recommend tools like OpenMTP, FTP/SMB servers on the phone, Termux+scp/rsync, or web servers (e.g., Sweech).
  • Some note MTP can be buggy or slow for large transfers; network-based transfers (FTP, SMB, Syncthing) are often preferred.

What “AirDrop for Android” implies

  • Strong view that an AirDrop equivalent must:
    • Work without pre-shared Wi‑Fi or Internet.
    • Use automatic peer discovery, ideally via ad‑hoc Wi‑Fi.
    • Allow quick sharing to nearby strangers, not only owned devices.
  • Some point out that requiring same-network sharing is a different, narrower use case.

Pricing and licensing reactions

  • Broad skepticism about paying for local file sharing when many free/open-source options exist.
  • Several argue small utilities should be one-time purchases; “updates for a year” is perceived as a de facto subscription.
  • Others counter that mobile apps need ongoing maintenance due to OS churn, which justifies recurring revenue.

Alternatives mentioned

  • Frequently cited: LocalSend, Snapdrop/Pairdrop/Sharedrop, Syncthing (and Syncthing-Fork), KDE Connect, Resilio Sync, Pushbullet, magic-wormhole, NearDrop, Nitroshare, PirateBox.
  • Many say they’d prefer these free, cross‑platform, or open-source tools over a paid proprietary app.

Security and trust

  • Debate over FTP-based approaches: convenient but unencrypted; acceptable on tightly controlled local networks, but risky on monitored/public networks.
  • One commenter questions why the app should be trusted more than messaging apps it criticizes.

Meta: Show HN etiquette

  • Some object that the project has been posted before with few updates and that the author is absent from the thread, seeing this as low-effort promotion rather than engaged “Show HN” participation.