Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.mobile.android > #36871 > unrolled thread

Android 6 and SD cards

Back to article view | Back to comp.mobile.android

Contents

  Android 6 and SD cards Daniel James <daniel@me.invalid> - 2016-12-22 20:58 +0000
    Re: Android 6 and SD cards Roger Mills <watt.tyler@gmail.com> - 2016-12-22 21:34 +0000
    Re: Android 6 and SD cards Daniel James <daniel@me.invalid> - 2016-12-22 21:39 +0000
      Re: Android 6 and SD cards The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2016-12-22 21:45 -0800
        Re: Android 6 and SD cards tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2016-12-23 12:09 -0500
          Re: Android 6 and SD cards tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2016-12-24 11:51 -0500
            Re: Android 6 and SD cards The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2016-12-24 10:06 -0800
              Re: Android 6 and SD cards tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2016-12-24 13:21 -0500
                Re: Android 6 and SD cards The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2016-12-24 11:54 -0800
                  Re: Android 6 and SD cards tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2016-12-25 00:01 -0500
                    Re: Android 6 and SD cards The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2016-12-24 21:44 -0800
                      Re: Android 6 and SD cards tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2016-12-25 14:18 -0500
                      Re: Android 6 and SD cards ANTant@zimage.com (Ant) - 2016-12-26 06:45 -0600
                        Re: Android 6 and SD cards The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2016-12-26 08:22 -0800
                          Re: Android 6 and SD cards ANTant@zimage.com (Ant) - 2016-12-27 03:58 -0600
                    Re: Android 6 and SD cards Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2016-12-26 18:50 +0000
        Re: Android 6 and SD cards Daniel James <daniel@me.invalid> - 2016-12-27 15:31 +0000
          Re: Android 6 and SD cards The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2016-12-27 09:04 -0800
            Re: Android 6 and SD cards "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@invalid.es> - 2016-12-28 20:52 +0100
          Re: Android 6 and SD cards tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2016-12-27 23:46 -0500
            Re: Android 6 and SD cards Daniel James <daniel@me.invalid> - 2016-12-28 10:51 +0000
    Re: Android 6 and SD cards tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2016-12-22 20:14 -0500
    Re: Android 6 and SD cards The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2016-12-22 21:43 -0800
      Re: Android 6 and SD cards Daniel James <daniel@me.invalid> - 2016-12-27 15:31 +0000
        Re: Android 6 and SD cards The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2016-12-27 08:59 -0800
          Re: Android 6 and SD cards Daniel James <daniel@me.invalid> - 2016-12-28 10:51 +0000
            Re: Android 6 and SD cards AL <l452236747@invalid.com> - 2016-12-28 09:10 -0700
            Re: Android 6 and SD cards AL <l452236747@invalid.com> - 2016-12-29 07:47 -0700
              Re: Android 6 and SD cards nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-12-29 16:19 -0500
              Re: Android 6 and SD cards tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2016-12-29 15:13 -0500
            Re: Android 6 and SD cards The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2016-12-28 11:20 -0800
              Re: Android 6 and SD cards The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2016-12-28 15:25 -0800
            Re: Android 6 and SD cards tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2016-12-29 04:04 -0500
              Re: Android 6 and SD cards nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2016-12-29 12:02 -0500
              Re: Android 6 and SD cards tlvp <mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> - 2016-12-29 15:06 -0500
            Re: Android 6 and SD cards "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@invalid.es> - 2016-12-28 21:15 +0100
        Re: Android 6 and SD cards Piet <www.godfatherof.nl/@opt-in.invalid> - 2016-12-27 18:55 +0100
          Re: Android 6 and SD cards Daniel James <daniel@me.invalid> - 2016-12-28 10:51 +0000
        Re: Android 6 and SD cards "Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@invalid.es> - 2016-12-28 21:06 +0100

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

#36989

In article <10ymayilct5ka$.1b88tkeawnzhs.dlg@40tude.net>, Tlvp wrote:
> Nothing like consistency of UI among models of a given OEMs line :-) .

Nope, nothing ... but remember that Moto (the mobile phone business) 
used to be owned by Motorola, then was bought by Google, and has since 
been bought by Lenovo. I don't recall how old the X2 you have is, but it 
may not be quite the same OEM.

The differences may also be due to different versions of Android -- 
though in that case it's fair to point to Google and accuse them of 
inconsistency.

Still, I suppose they think they're improving the UI at each stage -- 
Winston Churchill once famously said (on being accused of changing his 
mind on some important point of policy) "I should rather be right than 
consistent".

-- 
Cheers,
 Daniel.
 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#36881

On Thu, 22 Dec 2016 20:58:20 -0000, Daniel James wrote:

> ... the rather simple camera app 
> doesn't provide any means to select the destination for photographs, so they 
> all go into internal memory rather than onto the SD card if it is set up as 
> portable storage ...

Even if the camera app were not reconfigurable, as you discovered it is
shortly after that post, to use the external SD card as photo destination,
you could always move or copy your photos from wherever they are to the
external SD card with ES File Explorer (or a similar utility). More grunt
work, of course, but ... . HTH.

Cheers, -- tlvp
-- 
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#36886

On 12/22/2016 12:58 PM, Daniel James wrote:
> Having got my hands on a phone that runs Android 6 "Marshmallow" (a Moto G4
> Play) I thought I'd play around and try to answer a question I've asked
> several times that nobody has been able to answer.
>
> Background
>
> Android 6 can view an SD in either of two ways. It can be "portable storage"
> or "internal storage".
>
> If a card is used as portable storage Android uses it in pretty-much the
> same way as it has in earlier versions: it's used to store data in an
> ordinary filesystem in such a way that the card can be removed from the
> phone and used in another device (such as a PC).
>
> If a card is used as internal storage it becomes an extension of the phone's
> internal flash storage, and data that are stored on it can only be accessed
> in the Android device that formatted the card. Formatting the card this way
> enables it to be used to store apps (which in Android 6 you can't store in
> portable storage) and configuration data. etc.
>
> The thing that I hadn't been able to find out is: Can you partition the card
> so that it has one partition that can be used as internal storage and
> another partition that is portable and can be read on another device.
>
> Findings
>
> My initial findings are this isn't easy to do, if indeed you can do it at
> all.
>
> An SD card formatted as "portable storage" has a normal BIOS-style partition
> table, with a single Windows-style FAT32 or exFAT partition for the data.
>
> What I've discovered about an SD card that is formatted as "internal
> storage" is that it has a GPT partition table and two partitions as follows:
>
> One named android_meta with type:
> 19A710A2-B3CA-11E4-B026-10604B889DCF9BECF4E3-44ED-48AC-A831-50D3C0FD0539
>
> and one named android_expand with type:
> 193D1EA4-B3CA-11E4-B075-10604B889DCF 359AB3A6-F7B7-B687-0FC8-DB399A9BC232
>
> I didn't try to find out what sort of filesystem these partitions hold, and
> I believe that in any case at least one of them is encrypted.
>
> Conclusion
>
> My hope was that it would be possible to create an SD card with two
> partitions, one of which was an unencrypted FAT32 or exFAT partition for use
> as portable storage, and one of which was whatever was needed for internal
> storage, but what I've discovered is that Android doesn't even use the same
> partitioning system for these two types of card, so it seems pretty unlikely
> that we can have the best of both worlds.
>
> There are good security reasons for preventing the reading and writing of
> data from/to the internal storage of the Android device when the card is
> inserted into another device, but it's a pity that Google haven't made it
> possible to use just part of the SD card for internal storage and the rest
> for portable storage. It's particularly lamentable on the G4 Play (I don't
> know about other Marshmallow devices) because the rather simple camera app
> doesn't provide any means to select the destination for photographs, so they
> all go into internal memory rather than onto the SD card if it is set up as
> portable storage. JUST what you probably don't want!

There may be some camera apps that allow you to set the destination, but 
the MotoG #2 doesn't.  So I just created a couple of appropriate 
subdirectories (/sdcard/PHOTOS and /sdcard/SAVE [for DL, insurance, 
passport, etc.]).  It's not difficult to move photos from one place to 
another with the Gallery app that came with the phone.

> I hope this is of interest to someone.

Me, certainly :-)


-- 
Cheers, Bev
    "History started badly and hav been geting steadily worse."
                                          -- Nigel Molesworth

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#36972

In article <o3idfa$d3j$1@dont-email.me>, The Real Bev wrote:
> It's not difficult to move photos from one place to 
> another with the Gallery app that came with the phone.

You have a Gallery app that came with the Moto G2? That's interesting.

There's no Gallery app on the G4 play -- you seem to be expected to use 
Google Photos (which is OK as an app, but wants to upload all your 
photos to Google).

-- 
Cheers,
 Daniel.
 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#36973

On 12/27/2016 07:31 AM, Daniel James wrote:
> In article <o3idfa$d3j$1@dont-email.me>, The Real Bev wrote:
>> It's not difficult to move photos from one place to
>> another with the Gallery app that came with the phone.
>
> You have a Gallery app that came with the Moto G2? That's interesting.

The icon is a white-bordered green design with a stylized mountain and 
moon.  At least that's what I think it is.  I don't do icons well.  It 
came with the phone, honest.  There are editing capabilities too.

https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.motorola.MotGallery2

> There's no Gallery app on the G4 play -- you seem to be expected to use
> Google Photos (which is OK as an app, but wants to upload all your
> photos to Google).

They ruined Picasa.  I swear to god I really don't want to use google 
photos for ANYTHING, but I haven't had the energy to search for 
something better that will suck in all my albums.  On my computer 
they're just a mass of photos arranged chronologically rather than in 
albums.

-- 
Cheers, Bev
======================================================================
Eat this, NSA: bomb assassinate Washington North Korea Iraq spy poison
ISIS AlQaeda Bush Clinton Pelosi Reid

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#36991

In article <o3u6ib$idg$1@dont-email.me>, The Real Bev wrote:
>> You have a Gallery app that came with the Moto G2? That's
>> interesting.
> 
> The icon is a white-bordered green design with a stylized mountain
> and moon.  At least that's what I think it is.  I don't do icons
> well.  It came with the phone, honest.

I believe you!

I found and downloaded a PDF User Guide for my G4 Play, and it tells me 
that the photo viewing tools I can access by right-to-left swiping the 
screen are called "Gallery"; there's no icon to access it directly 
though, not on the G4 play.

I have other Android devices that have a "Gallery" app -- there's one on 
my cheap Asus 7" tablet, for instance, though its icon is a 
multicoloured hot-air balloon.

>> ... you seem to be expected to use Google Photos (which is OK as
>> an app, but wants to upload all your photos to Google).
> 
> They ruined Picasa.

Ah! That rings a bell. I never used Picasa when it was called Picasa, 
and I'd forgotten that Google Photos was the same thing (or its 
misbegotten progeny).

I'm not sure about this business of uploading photos to the cloud ... 
it's not that I don't want to share my pictures with Google (I don't, 
but that's secondary) it's more that I don't want to waste bandwidth 
doing so. Cellular bandwidth is slow and expensive, and not available 
everywhere; WiFi bandwidth is cheaper and may be faster but still 
(usually) has a cost and is available even less of the time.

> I swear to god I really don't want to use google 
> photos for ANYTHING, but I haven't had the energy to search for 
> something better that will suck in all my albums.  On my computer 
> they're just a mass of photos arranged chronologically rather than in 
> albums.

Most of my photos are taken with a real camera, not a phone, so the 
cloud doesn't come into it. I generally transfer them to a PC by taking 
the (full size) SD card out of the camera and inserting into a reader in 
the PC, and I organize them with Shotwell (on Linux). Shotwell isn't 
perfect, but it works more-or-less the way I want. I haven't found 
anything like it for Android.

-- 
Cheers,
 Daniel.
 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#36996

On 12/28/2016 3:51 AM, Daniel James wrote:

> I'm not sure about this business of uploading photos to the cloud ...
> it's not that I don't want to share my pictures with Google

I backup all my videos and photos to Google Drive. On my phone (Motorola 
Droid Turbo 2) the Google Drive app plays them directly. (At least the 
Google Drive UI doesn't visibly change when showing photos, I suppose it 
could be using another app in the background.)

> but that's secondary) it's more that I don't want to waste bandwidth
> doing so.

I mostly just use the 'feature' to bore relatives showing photos on my 
phone when out. It doesn't take that much bandwidth to show a few 
photos/videos occasionally. YMMV.

> Cellular bandwidth is slow

Slow? For photos? Isn't most everyone on 4G these days?

> and expensive

Agreed.

> and not available everywhere;

I used to keep photos on the phone's SD card so I could bore relatives 
no matter the cell coverage but it was a pain to have to constantly 
update them when I got new photos. The cloud is always in sync.

> WiFi bandwidth is cheaper and may be faster but still
> (usually) has a cost and is available even less of the time.

WiFi cost? Start frequenting the free places.

> Most of my photos are taken with a real camera, not a phone, so the
> cloud doesn't come into it.

Years ago (before the internet) I lost a priceless photo album in a 
fiery car accident. I don't want a repeat. The cloud is my cheap insurance.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37004

On 12/29/2016 2:04 AM, tlvp wrote:

> My reason to avoid storing photos -- or anything -- in the cloud is that
> the cloud can dissipate...

It's true the cloud could fail destroying you files. Likewise your house 
could burn down destroying your files. The devices you keep your files 
on could be stolen. There are many ways to lose them. Therefore it's 
wise to keep file backups in widely separated places so that a disaster 
at one location won't take them all. In my early computer days I kept 
backup floppy disks at an off site location. These days the cloud is 
much easier.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37012

In article <1je7qo01xr7hi$.1eawa1oklbqw0.dlg@40tude.net>, tlvp
<mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> wrote:

> 
> > It's true the cloud could fail destroying you files. Likewise your house 
> > could burn down destroying your files. The devices you keep your files 
> > on could be stolen. There are many ways to lose them.
> 
> Cloud storage, in my experience, is pretty sure to last no more than 2-5
> years before evaporating. 

nonsense.

apple and google have had cloud services for far longer than 2-5 years
and show no signs of going away any time soon.

flickr has been around for far longer than 2-5 years, and although it's
owned by yahoo which has some recent issues, it too shows no signs of
going away any time soon.

dropbox and other cloud services also have been around for far longer
than 2-5 years and also show no signs of going away any time soon.

but even if you did foolishly choose a shitty cloud service that went
away in a couple of years, it doesn't actually matter. you simply
upload your photos, of which you have local copies, to another cloud
service. 

> Houses and devices last a good deal longer than
> that without incident ...

some do, some don't. 

some devices last just weeks, such as the galaxy note 7, which caused
at least one vehicle fire, destroying much (if not all) of its
contents:
<http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/2016/09/12/exploding-samsung-note-
7-sets-jeep-on-fire-how-to-check-your-pho/>

unlike cloud services, there is no backup of your house, so if it burns
down or is otherwise destroyed, so will everything in it, including all
of your photos.

that's why having multiple backups, including ones offsite, such as the
cloud, is *vital*. to not do so is negligent.

> other than NV flash memory, which is highly
> unpredictable. No good reason for me to "rely" on any storage "solution"
> that's no longer term than is the cloud. YMMV. Cheers, -- tlvp

never rely on one single copy of anything.

cloud services have multiple geographically diverse backups, so if an
entire city is wiped out, there are other copies elsewhere. however, in
the unlikely event *all* of them fail (highly unlikely, as the planet
would need to be destroyed), you still have local copies, so it doesn't
make one bit of difference. you'll just need to upload again, but that
can be automated.

if your house burns down, you would have other local copies as well as
one or more copies in the cloud. in other words, that doesn't matter
either, at least for the photos. it might suck in other ways, but
insurance will put you up in a decent hotel until it's rebuilt, so it's
not the end of the world.

now if the world does end, then your photos are forever lost, but at
that point it won't matter anymore.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37052

On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 07:47:37 -0700, AL wrote:

> It's true the cloud could fail destroying you files. Likewise your house 
> could burn down destroying your files. The devices you keep your files 
> on could be stolen. There are many ways to lose them.

Cloud storage, in my experience, is pretty sure to last no more than 2-5
years before evaporating. Houses and devices last a good deal longer than
that without incident ... other than NV flash memory, which is highly
unpredictable. No good reason for me to "rely" on any storage "solution"
that's no longer term than is the cloud. YMMV. Cheers, -- tlvp
-- 
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37018

On 12/28/2016 02:51 AM, Daniel James wrote:
> In article <o3u6ib$idg$1@dont-email.me>, The Real Bev wrote:
>>> You have a Gallery app that came with the Moto G2? That's
>>> interesting.
>>
>> The icon is a white-bordered green design with a stylized mountain
>> and moon.  At least that's what I think it is.  I don't do icons
>> well.  It came with the phone, honest.
>
> I believe you!
>
> I found and downloaded a PDF User Guide for my G4 Play, and it tells me
> that the photo viewing tools I can access by right-to-left swiping the
> screen are called "Gallery"; there's no icon to access it directly
> though, not on the G4 play.
>
> I have other Android devices that have a "Gallery" app -- there's one on
> my cheap Asus 7" tablet, for instance, though its icon is a
> multicoloured hot-air balloon.
>
>>> ... you seem to be expected to use Google Photos (which is OK as
>>> an app, but wants to upload all your photos to Google).
>>
>> They ruined Picasa.
>
> Ah! That rings a bell. I never used Picasa when it was called Picasa,
> and I'd forgotten that Google Photos was the same thing (or its
> misbegotten progeny).
>
> I'm not sure about this business of uploading photos to the cloud ...
> it's not that I don't want to share my pictures with Google (I don't,
> but that's secondary) it's more that I don't want to waste bandwidth
> doing so. Cellular bandwidth is slow and expensive, and not available
> everywhere; WiFi bandwidth is cheaper and may be faster but still
> (usually) has a cost and is available even less of the time.

I ftp phone photos to the computer for manipulation/storage and then 
upload them to googlephotos from the computer.  Apparently google also 
sucks up photos as I take them, but since I don't have a data plan it 
has to wait until I'm logged into the wifi at home.

>> I swear to god I really don't want to use google
>> photos for ANYTHING, but I haven't had the energy to search for
>> something better that will suck in all my albums.  On my computer
>> they're just a mass of photos arranged chronologically rather than in
>> albums.
>
> Most of my photos are taken with a real camera, not a phone, so the
> cloud doesn't come into it. I generally transfer them to a PC by taking
> the (full size) SD card out of the camera and inserting into a reader in
> the PC, and I organize them with Shotwell (on Linux). Shotwell isn't
> perfect, but it works more-or-less the way I want. I haven't found
> anything like it for Android.

Similar, but I edit with Picasa -- which does pretty much everything I 
want doing. I use xv sometimes, but it doesn't save EXIF info.   It's 
been a while since I was willing to go to the bother of figuring out how 
to use gimp to straighten pictures of tall buildings the way a view 
camera would.  It wants to organize the photos into albums, but its 
display of subdirectories etc. is sufficiently cluttered that I delete 
the 'albums' it creates.  This is probably a mistake :-(

-- 
Cheers, Bev
   "Never keep up with the Joneses. Drag them down to your level.
    It's cheaper."                  -- Quentin Crisp 1908 - 1999

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37047

On 12/28/2016 11:20 AM, The Real Bev wrote:
> On 12/28/2016 02:51 AM, Daniel James wrote:
>>
>> Most of my photos are taken with a real camera, not a phone, so the
>> cloud doesn't come into it. I generally transfer them to a PC by taking
>> the (full size) SD card out of the camera and inserting into a reader in
>> the PC, and I organize them with Shotwell (on Linux). Shotwell isn't
>> perfect, but it works more-or-less the way I want. I haven't found
>> anything like it for Android.
>
> Similar, but I edit with Picasa -- which does pretty much everything I
> want doing. I use xv sometimes, but it doesn't save EXIF info.   It's
> been a while since I was willing to go to the bother of figuring out how
> to use gimp to straighten pictures of tall buildings the way a view
> camera would.  It wants to organize the photos into albums, but its
> display of subdirectories etc. is sufficiently cluttered that I delete
> the 'albums' it creates.  This is probably a mistake :-(

"It" here = picasa, not xv.  I should know better :-(


-- 
Cheers, Bev
    "Yahoo has released its own search engine. For more info,
     type 'yahoo search engine' into Google."       -D.Miller

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37020

On Wed, 28 Dec 2016 10:51:45 -0000, Daniel James wrote:

> Cellular bandwidth is slow and expensive, and not available 
> everywhere; WiFi bandwidth is cheaper and may be faster

Where i come from, my cellular bandwidth is a heck of a lot faster than the
wi-fi I get with my verschluggene Frontier DSL, far more reliable (*none*
of Frontier's recurrent failures to assign me a WAN IP address), and costs
marginally nothing (beyond the cellular phone bill I'm paying anyway),
whereas Frontier costs me a marginal $20 beyond my fixed phone bill.

My reason to avoid storing photos -- or anything -- in the cloud is that
the cloud can dissipate: one fine moment it's there (think AT&T WorldNet
Home Pages, Yahoo's GeoCities, or the pics I put up in Picassa), the next
it's not (everything I had put up in any of those places evaporated --
fooph! -- like dandelion fluff in the wind).

Cheers, -- tlvp
-- 
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37024

In article <ypjyhin4mesg.i36rssix21gi$.dlg@40tude.net>, tlvp
<mPiOsUcB.EtLlLvEp@att.net> wrote:

> 
> My reason to avoid storing photos -- or anything -- in the cloud is that
> the cloud can dissipate: one fine moment it's there (think AT&T WorldNet
> Home Pages, Yahoo's GeoCities, or the pics I put up in Picassa), the next
> it's not (everything I had put up in any of those places evaporated --
> fooph! -- like dandelion fluff in the wind).

nope. the cloud services can all disappear, but you still have your
local copies so nothing is lost.

furthermore, cloud services normally give ample warning that they're
shutting down, giving you ample opportunity to download anything you
uploaded, so in the event you foolishly don't have any other copies
anywhere (which is your own fault, not theirs), you can still download
everything before the shutdown, still avoiding total loss.

not only that, but google or apple won't to be shutting down anytime
soon.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37051

On Thu, 29 Dec 2016 04:04:11 -0500, tlvp mis-wrote:

> ... the pics I put up in Picassa ...

Mis-attribution. Seattle FotoWorks, I believe. My apologies.

Cheers, -- tlvp
-- 
Avant de repondre, jeter la poubelle, SVP.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37035

On 2016-12-28 11:51, Daniel James wrote:

> I'm not sure about this business of uploading photos to the cloud ... 
> it's not that I don't want to share my pictures with Google (I don't, 
> but that's secondary) it's more that I don't want to waste bandwidth 
> doing so. Cellular bandwidth is slow and expensive, and not available 
> everywhere; WiFi bandwidth is cheaper and may be faster but still 
> (usually) has a cost and is available even less of the time.

On my phone I configured it to work while charging, and only over wifi.

-- 
Cheers,
       Carlos E.R.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#36975

Daniel James wrote:
> In article <o3idfa$d3j$1@dont-email.me>, The Real Bev wrote:
> There's no Gallery app on the G4 play -- you seem to be expected
> to use Google Photos (which is OK as an app, but wants to upload
> all your photos to Google).

Why do you seem to think there are no other gallery apps?
There are, e.g.
https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.alensw.PicFolder

-p

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#36990

In article <o3u9v2$12ra$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Piet wrote:
> Why do you seem to think there are no other gallery apps?

I don't think what I wrote suggests that.

I know there are a gazillion apps for everything under the sun -- but 
we were discussing what's *provided* on the phone.

I suggested that Moto/Lenovo expect you to use Google Photos because 
that is the only app they provide -- one can download others, of 
course, but the OEM and Google steer the user toward a certain choice 
by preinstalling it and making it easy to find.

In fact I was wrong. It seems that the "Gallery" app from early Moto 
devices has been merged into the camera app on the G4 Play, and not 
dropped as I first thought. It's well hidden, though!

-- 
Cheers,
 Daniel.
 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37034

On 2016-12-27 16:31, Daniel James wrote:

> You have a Gallery app that came with the Moto G2? That's interesting.
> 
> There's no Gallery app on the G4 play -- you seem to be expected to use 
> Google Photos (which is OK as an app, but wants to upload all your 
> photos to Google).

Mine is "Moto X Play", and it has a Gallery, perhaps not installed by
default, I don't remember. It is a Motorola app, the license says so.

-- 
Cheers,
       Carlos E.R.

[toc] | [prev] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 2 — ← Prev page 1 [2]

Back to top | Article view | comp.mobile.android

csiph-web