Dropbox alternatives for hosting simple web pages?

Discussion in 'Web Design and Development' started by mcdj, Sep 1, 2016.

  1. mcdj macrumors G3


    Jul 10, 2007
    As some of you may know, Dropbox has just announced they will be disabling the rendering of html files in the Public folder, meaning those of us who host web content from Dropbox are out of luck.

    Personally, I used it to share simple web galleries created with Juicebox. Using the combo of Juicebox and Dropbox couldn't have been easier...drag and drop a folder of images into Juicebox, click "publish", navigate to the Dropbox public folder, save, then copy the public link of the Juicebox-created index.html file and share it.

    Example here...

    https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/479247/Ireland II/index.html

    Even if I paid for web hosting, what could be easier than what I described above? Is there anything free or dirt cheap that doesn't involve FTP, and doesn't show ads? Google drive is out. Amazon cloud is out. iCloud Drive out. Tried those. They don't render HTML.
  2. T'hain Esh Kelch macrumors 601

    T'hain Esh Kelch

    Aug 5, 2001
    You have a build in apache server in OSX, why not just use that? Having your machine run 24/7 is cheaper than off site hosting.
  3. ricosuave macrumors 6502


    Mar 27, 2007
    In front of my mac
    A free weebly account?
  4. D.T., Sep 4, 2016
    Last edited: Sep 4, 2016

    D.T. macrumors G3


    Sep 15, 2011
    Vilano Beach, FL
    AWS S3 is super cheap for hosting static content. Easily connected to other services (CDN, video streaming/conversion, etc.) Use a tool like CyberDuck, and it's also a simple drag&drop to deploy updates. You need a bit of configuration, mostly DNS related, if you want to host a custom domain.

    I also dig on Netlify.com, static hosting, has integrated generators (for people who code their static content using templates, etc), D&D, multi-site hosting, custom domains, SSL, a nice web interface, version control - and their free option recently got a bump in the service level. You'd have to look over the options to see if the bandwidth/storage worked for your requirements (my guess is yes).

Share This Page