31 ms·

Are you saying they restricted SD card access further? Because I am able to use FolderSync to do wireless file transfer at very high speeds. I am not a develope

Are you saying they restricted SD card access further? Because I am able to use FolderSync to do wireless file transfer at very high speeds. I am not a developer or associated, http://www.tacit.dk/foldersync/faq/#how-can-i-access-external-sd-card-on-android-5-0-and-newer http://www.tacit.dk/foldersync/faq/#how-can-i-access-externa...

makomk 8y ago
Yeah, the external storage permissions are going away altogether according to https://developer.android.com/preview/privacy/scoped-storage https://developer.android.com/preview/privacy/scoped-storage - apps will no longer be able to get access to them.
- ggm 8y ago
  What is external storage for if the apps can't access it?
  - Y_Y 8y ago
    Android will soon be so large that the OS won't fit in the 16GB of internal memory most phones have and will use some of the external too.
  - makomk 8y ago
    They can still access their own private area within external storage, which is fine for apps that just want to store large amounts of their own data, and they can use it for photos, video and music. There's just not any kind of general access to it anymore.
- NiekvdMaas 8y ago
  That doesn't seem to be entirely true: https://developer.android.com/preview/privacy/scoped-storage#browse-external-storage https://developer.android.com/preview/privacy/scoped-storage...
  - iggldiggl 8y ago
    Yes, my interpretation is that that apps that simply used to use the READ/WRITE_EXTERNAL_STORAGE (runtime) permissions (which, if granted, implicitly give access to the whole storage, albeit possibly with some write access restrictions on removable SD cards) now instead need to explicitly ask the user to pick an allowed directory tree (or trees) using ACTION_OPEN_DOCUMENT_TREE. So nothing that used to work should have become totally impossible now and instead of a simple yes/no choice users now could also answer "Yes, but only this directory", which should be nice, although it also means a slightly more complicated UX. Of course Google also prefers you to use content://-URIs instead anyway. Those do indeed have the advantage that the receiving app doesn't require any special permissions because it simply uses the permissions granted by the app sending that intent, but at the same time they also have a number of issues that Google chooses to ignore. I've ranted about some of those here (https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/9175cafb84bd https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/9175cafb84bd), and the most important in my view is that content://-URIs as currently implemented totally break opening of locally stored HTML files (https://issuetracker.google.com/issues/77406791 https://issuetracker.google.com/issues/77406791) and other similar content that implicitly depends on more than the one file that can be transmitted through the content://-URI intent.

makomk 8y ago

Yeah, the external storage permissions are going away altogether according to https://developer.android.com/preview/privacy/scoped-storage https://developer.android.com/preview/privacy/scoped-storage - apps will no longer be able to get access to them.

ggm 8y ago
What is external storage for if the apps can't access it?
- Y_Y 8y ago
  Android will soon be so large that the OS won't fit in the 16GB of internal memory most phones have and will use some of the external too.
- makomk 8y ago
  They can still access their own private area within external storage, which is fine for apps that just want to store large amounts of their own data, and they can use it for photos, video and music. There's just not any kind of general access to it anymore.
NiekvdMaas 8y ago
That doesn't seem to be entirely true: https://developer.android.com/preview/privacy/scoped-storage#browse-external-storage https://developer.android.com/preview/privacy/scoped-storage...
- iggldiggl 8y ago
  Yes, my interpretation is that that apps that simply used to use the READ/WRITE_EXTERNAL_STORAGE (runtime) permissions (which, if granted, implicitly give access to the whole storage, albeit possibly with some write access restrictions on removable SD cards) now instead need to explicitly ask the user to pick an allowed directory tree (or trees) using ACTION_OPEN_DOCUMENT_TREE. So nothing that used to work should have become totally impossible now and instead of a simple yes/no choice users now could also answer "Yes, but only this directory", which should be nice, although it also means a slightly more complicated UX. Of course Google also prefers you to use content://-URIs instead anyway. Those do indeed have the advantage that the receiving app doesn't require any special permissions because it simply uses the permissions granted by the app sending that intent, but at the same time they also have a number of issues that Google chooses to ignore. I've ranted about some of those here (https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/9175cafb84bd https://hg.mozilla.org/mozilla-central/rev/9175cafb84bd), and the most important in my view is that content://-URIs as currently implemented totally break opening of locally stored HTML files (https://issuetracker.google.com/issues/77406791 https://issuetracker.google.com/issues/77406791) and other similar content that implicitly depends on more than the one file that can be transmitted through the content://-URI intent.