I have to think about it all the time. It flatly fails to serve my gaming club. We have a Gb of card images for our card games. Almost every club member cannot share these files, since they run out of space.
Think about it. Sharing files between 25 club members, using our own bandwidth, our own disk space. And Dropbox thinks we should pay them big bucks for this. For what? Storing our files on their server, insecurely? If they had an option to stop doing that, I would select it.
Well, OK. The fact that it doesn't solve any problems for you has little bearing on the excitement of those who, like me, find that it solves many of their problems.
The reason that storing files on their server (and using their bandwidth, as well as yours) is important is that it means I don't have to keep all my synced computers on at all times. That's a big deal for me.
It sounds like yours is another problem, which Dropbox is not well adapted to. Perhaps you'd be better off with PowerFolder or similar.
Just posting my experience, like others here do all the time. Another example is instructive.
My problem is, Dropbox scales the cost as the number of people looking at a folder increases. As an Engineer I see that as marketing, their cost doesn't increase incrementally in this case. It seems unnecessary and blocks me.
Btw you would only have to keep 1 synced computer on, some of the time. Not a big deal actually. And why keep my data around on their server after we're synced? Simpler for them I suppose, but insecure for me.
I could try and get everybody in the club to install another tool; might look into that, thx.
Think about it. Sharing files between 25 club members, using our own bandwidth, our own disk space. And Dropbox thinks we should pay them big bucks for this. For what? Storing our files on their server, insecurely? If they had an option to stop doing that, I would select it.
SO no, it doesn't solve any hard problems for us.