From FTP to the download link: 40 years of sending files
From floppy disks to instant links: how the way we exchange files has evolved — and what each era taught us.
Sending a file to someone is one of the oldest problems in networked computing — and every generation has solved it with the means of its time. Retracing that history sheds light on something we tend to forget: nearly all the tools we use out of habit were designed for constraints that no longer exist.
1985: FTP, file exchange for insiders
The File Transfer Protocol was standardized in 1985 (its roots go back to 1971, before TCP/IP even existed). For twenty years, it was the serious method: a server, user accounts, a client to install. Robust, scriptable — and reserved for those in the know. Its original flaw was only fixed late in life: everything traveled in plain text, credentials included. FTP survives today in machine-to-machine workflows; for exchanges between people, its replacement is complete.
1992: the attachment goes mainstream
The MIME standard (1992) made it possible to attach files to emails — and that brought file exchange to everyone: no server, no client, the file travels with the message. But the architecture has a hidden cost: the file is encoded as text (+33% in size), copied onto every server it crosses, and capped — limits of a few megabytes that, remarkably, have barely moved in thirty years while files grew a thousandfold.
The floppy, CD and USB-stick years
In parallel, the “sneakernet” — physically carrying the storage medium — long remained the channel for large volumes: floppy disks (1.44 MB!), burned CDs, then USB sticks and external drives. Its logic lives on in audiovisual production: beyond a terabyte, the couriered hard drive still has its followers. Below that, fiber has made it obsolete.
2008: the cloud and synchronization
Dropbox (2008) and then Google Drive (2012) changed the paradigm: the file is no longer sent, it lives in a shared, synchronized space. Brilliant for collaborating — but hijacked for delivering: sharing an entire folder to hand over three files, managing permissions for a one-off send, permanent links nobody ever revokes. The collaboration tool was never a delivery tool.
2009–2026: the era of the link
From 2009 onwards, a new family of tools finally approached the problem the right way around: the file is hosted temporarily, and the recipient receives a link — no account, no client, no attachment limit. WeTransfer led the way; TransferNow arrived in 2013 and pushed the logic further: entire folders with their structure, password and tracking included, up to 5 GB for free and 500 GB per transfer. The time-limited link combines what every era was looking for: the simplicity of the attachment, the capacity of FTP, without the infrastructure of either.
What each era taught us
- From FTP: reliability matters, but a tool that requires an expert never goes mainstream.
- From the attachment: simplicity always wins — until technical limits catch up with it.
- From physical media: bandwidth solves everything, delay kills everything.
- From the cloud: collaborating and delivering are two different jobs — confusing them creates friction.
- From the link: the best tool is the one that asks nothing of the recipient.
Frequently asked questions
Is FTP dead?
For exchanges between people, yes — replaced by the download link. It survives in automated machine-to-machine workflows, where its successors (SFTP) and APIs are gradually taking over.
Why have attachment limits never increased?
Because email’s architecture copies every attachment onto every server it crosses and into every recipient’s mailbox: raising the limit would multiply the costs of the entire global infrastructure. The link sidesteps the problem instead of enduring it.
When did link-based file transfer appear?
From 2009: WeTransfer pioneered the temporarily hosted file behind a download link. TransferNow arrived in 2013 and extended the logic: entire folders with their structure, password and tracking included.
What’s the difference between a drive (Dropbox, Google Drive) and a transfer service?
A drive makes the file live in a shared, synchronized space: perfect for collaborating, cumbersome for delivering (permissions, permanent links). A transfer service does the opposite: a one-off send, a time-limited link, nothing to manage afterwards.
Are USB sticks or couriered drives still worth it?
Beyond a terabyte, the physical drive sent by courier still has its followers in the audiovisual world. Below that, fiber has made it obsolete: a download link arrives faster than any courier.
5 GB per transfer for free, no sign-up