Excellent self-owning example:
> You mean that dumb app that forced you to move files into a single folder instead of adapting to your workflow was prefect?
Users in 2012 were overwhelmingly of the cohort who's metaphor for doing work on a computer was the filesystem. You opened Files with Programs, worked on them, saved them. You wanted your latest Files on all your computers (1), and you wanted to Share them (2).
Unless users were on a system managed by a sysadmin there were only really two solutions for problems (1)&(2): you would Email the File (A), or you would copy it to a Floppy/CD/USB (B) and physically move it.
Note the caveat of "in absence of a sysadmin". So either on a school or corporate work environment, or if you happened to have a geek in your family/social group who did it as a passion project. Or y'know, if _you_ were the geek you could roll your own.
So of course when Dropbox was first introduced to a technical audience they didn't get it. See the infamous thread ;) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8863
While you're there, note the tag line in the title of the post "Throw away your USB key"
Now rereading your comment it is clearly an example of exactly what OP was referring to:
> It takes real courage for a builder to say, "It’s good enough. It’s complete. It serves the core use cases well." If people want more features? Great, make it a separate product under a new brand.
If Dropbox did not "adapt to your workflow", then just _don't use Dropbox_.
Instead you attack it as "dumb" and demand it change...and those users for whom Dropbox _was_ perfectly adapted don't have their solution anymore.
Software doesn't have to be forever changing and chasing user growth; it's not a zero-sum game. The bits don't care if no one uses them. But _people_ care if you take away their bits.
> ...we shouldn't normalize that, we should push for improvements
Agreed, you should create a new solution and put it out there! Just as suggested by the post you've replied to :)