Show HN: Stop paying for Dropbox/Google Drive, use your own S3 bucket instead

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Role of Sync Clients vs. Raw Storage

  • Many argue Dropbox/Google Drive’s value is not storage but polished clients: background sync, conflict handling, OS integration (File Provider, iOS Files app, “mounted drive” behavior).
  • The presented tool is seen more as a web UI for S3 than a full Dropbox replacement since it apparently lacks continuous local sync and multi-device conflict resolution.
  • Handling sync conflicts and edge cases is repeatedly highlighted as hard and where mature services have invested heavily.

Cost and Pricing Comparisons

  • Several point out S3 (and similar object stores) are often more expensive than consumer cloud plans when factoring in storage, operations, and egress.
  • Examples: Dropbox 2TB at ~$10–$120/year is often cheaper than equivalent S3 standard or even infrequent-access tiers; some note cheaper S3-compatible options (R2, Wasabi, Backblaze) but still not always better than consumer plans.
  • Retrieval and API-call fees on object storage make predictable pricing harder than flat-rate consumer services.

Alternatives and Ecosystem

  • Numerous existing options are mentioned:
    • Self-hosted sync/drive: Nextcloud, Seafile (esp. SeaDrive), Syncthing, Filestash, SFTPGo, Garage, MinIO (older OSS), ZeroFS, SpaceDrive, local SMB/rsync setups.
    • Some praise Syncthing for reliability and simplicity, but note weak mobile UX and lack of streaming/partial sync.
    • Seafile/SeaDrive and Nextcloud with File Provider are cited as closer to Dropbox-style “online vs. offline” behavior.
  • Some prefer using rsync/rclone plus encrypted layers (e.g., Cryptomator) on top of commercial cloud.

Self‑Hosting, Trust, and Risk

  • Strong skepticism toward “vibe-coded,” AI-generated, or very new backup/sync tools for critical data.
  • Several emphasize that file sync/backup is deceptively complex; real trust comes from years of battle-testing, not quick iteration.
  • Others value self-hosting and S3-compatible backends for data sovereignty and multi-provider redundancy, despite complexity.
  • Concerns raised about vendor lock-in and account bans with big cloud providers; others counter that for many users, reliability and low time cost of Dropbox/Google Drive outweigh philosophical concerns.

Feature Gaps and Requests

  • Requested capabilities include: transparent end-to-end encryption, file versioning, recycle bin, sharing with permissions, search, partial/offline sync, mobile/desktop clients, and background sync agents.
  • Without these, many see the project as interesting but not a real Dropbox/Google Drive replacement.