On 2023-09-05 23:27, Wally J wrote:
> Ed Cryer <ed@somewhere.in.the.uk> wrote
>
>>> This could find hardware problems (e.g., in the USB cable or in the port
>>> being used on the PC) which are related to _both_ the OP's issues.
>>
>> Thanks, pal. I think you overwhelmed me with a vast quantity of help,
>> but I can see you had the answer too.
>
> I'm not a normal...

....human?

We know, Arlen.

We know.

:-)

Ed Cryer <ed@somewhere.in.the.uk> wrote:
[...]

> I tried it into my TV's USB port.
> The phone gave me three options;
> 1. USB charging
> 2. Transfers files
> 3. Transfer photos & videos
>
> The TV's media function gave me "no USB device attached" for all three.

That's because the TV wants to see a (USB) 'mass storage device',
which the (smart)phone isn't.

In old Android versions, Android used to have a 'mass storage' mode
for the USB connection, but that was later removed, because it means you
have two 'computers' (controllers) - the smartphone and the (real)
computer - *both* trying to control access to the storage medium, which
gives all kinds of (corruption, data loss, etc.) problems.

So that functionality was removed, and now you only have a MTP (or
PTP) 'device'. I say 'device', because it's not a 'drive' in Windows
terms. Just look in (Windows) File Explorer and you will see that it
does not have a drive letter, so can *only* access it in File Explorer,
but not in any other way, like you can with 'real' mass storage devices,
which *do* have a drive letter.

> I can plug HDs and memory sticks into the TV and they're recognised.

See above. These work, because they *are* mass storage devices
(instead of 'computers).

> Maybe a micro-USB to HDMI cable would play directly onto the TV. But not
> needed, because I have an Apple TV device and I can pass files into it
> from the PC wirelessly.

On 2023-09-06 10:27, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> Ed Cryer <ed@somewhere.in.the.uk> wrote:
> [...]
>
>> I tried it into my TV's USB port.
>> The phone gave me three options;
>> 1. USB charging
>> 2. Transfers files
>> 3. Transfer photos & videos
>>
>> The TV's media function gave me "no USB device attached" for all three.
>
> That's because the TV wants to see a (USB) 'mass storage device',
> which the (smart)phone isn't.
>
> In old Android versions, Android used to have a 'mass storage' mode
> for the USB connection, but that was later removed, because it means you
> have two 'computers' (controllers) - the smartphone and the (real)
> computer - *both* trying to control access to the storage medium, which
> gives all kinds of (corruption, data loss, etc.) problems.

Corruption was avoided by the phone giving control totally to the
computer xor totally to the phone. Thus the phone stopped working as a
phone for the duration, and did not exercise permission control. When
unplugged, the phone had to mount and rescan the storage.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

Le Wed, 6 Sep 2023 11:12:56 -0400, Carlos E. R. a écrit :

> On 2023-09-06 10:27, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>
>> In old Android versions, Android used to have a 'mass storage' mode
>> for the USB connection, but that was later removed, because it means
>> you have two 'computers' (controllers) - the smartphone and the (real)
>> computer - *both* trying to control access to the storage medium, which
>> gives all kinds of (corruption, data loss, etc.) problems.
>
> Corruption was avoided by the phone giving control totally to the
> computer xor totally to the phone. Thus the phone stopped working as a
> phone for the duration, and did not exercise permission control. When
> unplugged, the phone had to mount and rescan the storage.

Well, the computer could corrupt the filesystem similarly to a standard
USB drive. The removal of the USB Mass Storage mode also got rid of that
risk.

Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> On 2023-09-06 10:27, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> > Ed Cryer <ed@somewhere.in.the.uk> wrote:
> > [...]
> >
> >> I tried it into my TV's USB port.
> >> The phone gave me three options;
> >> 1. USB charging
> >> 2. Transfers files
> >> 3. Transfer photos & videos
> >>
> >> The TV's media function gave me "no USB device attached" for all three.
> >
> > That's because the TV wants to see a (USB) 'mass storage device',
> > which the (smart)phone isn't.
> >
> > In old Android versions, Android used to have a 'mass storage' mode
> > for the USB connection, but that was later removed, because it means you
> > have two 'computers' (controllers) - the smartphone and the (real)
> > computer - *both* trying to control access to the storage medium, which
> > gives all kinds of (corruption, data loss, etc.) problems.
>
> Corruption was avoided by the phone giving control totally to the
> computer xor totally to the phone. Thus the phone stopped working as a
> phone for the duration, and did not exercise permission control. When
> unplugged, the phone had to mount and rescan the storage.

Well, at the time, I had several/many apps which had part of their
code on the SD-card - "Move to SD card" - (because Internal storage was
way, way too small) and I can tell you they got 'happily' corrupted if
the SD-card wasn't *manually* unmounted before using the USB-connection
(in 'mass storage' (or whatever was the term) mode) to the computer.

It was broken-by-design and was removed when most Windows systems had
MTP support. (Never mind the Mac and Linux users! :-))

Ed Cryer <ed@somewhere.in.the.uk> wrote:

> I tried it into my TV's USB port.
> The phone gave me three options;
> 1. USB charging
> 2. Transfers files
> 3. Transfer photos & videos
> The TV's media function gave me "no USB device attached" for all three.
>
> I can plug HDs and memory sticks into the TV and they're recognised.
> Maybe a micro-USB to HDMI cable would play directly onto the TV. But not
> needed, because I have an Apple TV device and I can pass files into it
> from the PC wirelessly.

Windows and Android support PTP and MTP to transfer files. TVs want
just a storage device to find files. They aren't transferring files.

Some TVs have limited support on their USB ports, like FAT32, 2 TB max
volume size, and only show limited filetypes of photo files, but won't
show movies. They expect the USB device to be a mass storage device,
not trying to transfer files between TV and USB device. My TV's USB
port is like that: 2TB max FAT32 volume, storage device (not media
transfer), and photos only. The fix was to attached the 4TB HDD USB
drive to my Blueray player's USB port. The BD player connects to the TV
using HDMI. The much cheaper BD player had a much smarter USB port than
does my "smart" TV.

You found your own workaround. Another would be to use a Chromecast,
Roku, or other media player, that plugs into the HDMI port on the TV.
Some TVs have built-in Chromecast support, but you still have to use the
HDMI port on the TV. A smart TV is not a computer. It's a mess.

VanguardLH wrote:
> Ed Cryer <ed@somewhere.in.the.uk> wrote:
>
>> I tried it into my TV's USB port.
>> The phone gave me three options;
>> 1. USB charging
>> 2. Transfers files
>> 3. Transfer photos & videos
>> The TV's media function gave me "no USB device attached" for all three.
>>
>> I can plug HDs and memory sticks into the TV and they're recognised.
>> Maybe a micro-USB to HDMI cable would play directly onto the TV. But not
>> needed, because I have an Apple TV device and I can pass files into it
>> from the PC wirelessly.
>
> Windows and Android support PTP and MTP to transfer files. TVs want
> just a storage device to find files. They aren't transferring files.
>
> Some TVs have limited support on their USB ports, like FAT32, 2 TB max
> volume size, and only show limited filetypes of photo files, but won't
> show movies. They expect the USB device to be a mass storage device,
> not trying to transfer files between TV and USB device. My TV's USB
> port is like that: 2TB max FAT32 volume, storage device (not media
> transfer), and photos only. The fix was to attached the 4TB HDD USB
> drive to my Blueray player's USB port. The BD player connects to the TV
> using HDMI. The much cheaper BD player had a much smarter USB port than
> does my "smart" TV.
>
> You found your own workaround. Another would be to use a Chromecast,
> Roku, or other media player, that plugs into the HDMI port on the TV.
> Some TVs have built-in Chromecast support, but you still have to use the
> HDMI port on the TV. A smart TV is not a computer. It's a mess.

Hey, man, this discussion is looking more and more like one conducted in
an iPhone/ iPad group.
I'm used to and inured to those; Apple's ring-fencing is ancient news.
But Windows has always shouted "open-ended" to me.
I can only assume that MS are restricted here by Google's lawyers and
bullies.

Ed

On 2023-09-06 11:47, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>> On 2023-09-06 10:27, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>> Ed Cryer <ed@somewhere.in.the.uk> wrote:
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>> I tried it into my TV's USB port.
>>>> The phone gave me three options;
>>>> 1. USB charging
>>>> 2. Transfers files
>>>> 3. Transfer photos & videos
>>>>
>>>> The TV's media function gave me "no USB device attached" for all three.
>>>
>>> That's because the TV wants to see a (USB) 'mass storage device',
>>> which the (smart)phone isn't.
>>>
>>> In old Android versions, Android used to have a 'mass storage' mode
>>> for the USB connection, but that was later removed, because it means you
>>> have two 'computers' (controllers) - the smartphone and the (real)
>>> computer - *both* trying to control access to the storage medium, which
>>> gives all kinds of (corruption, data loss, etc.) problems.
>>
>> Corruption was avoided by the phone giving control totally to the
>> computer xor totally to the phone. Thus the phone stopped working as a
>> phone for the duration, and did not exercise permission control. When
>> unplugged, the phone had to mount and rescan the storage.
>
> Well, at the time, I had several/many apps which had part of their
> code on the SD-card - "Move to SD card" - (because Internal storage was
> way, way too small) and I can tell you they got 'happily' corrupted if
> the SD-card wasn't *manually* unmounted before using the USB-connection
> (in 'mass storage' (or whatever was the term) mode) to the computer.

Never happened to me.

> It was broken-by-design and was removed when most Windows systems had
> MTP support. (Never mind the Mac and Linux users! :-))

Probably I updated the phone late, so I was not affected by this, my
linux supported mtp when I needed it :-)

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

"Carlos E. R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote in
news:kls57bFj14hU4@mid.individual.net:

> On 2023-09-06 11:47, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>> Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 2023-09-06 10:27, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>>> Ed Cryer <ed@somewhere.in.the.uk> wrote:
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>>> I tried it into my TV's USB port.
>>>>> The phone gave me three options;
>>>>> 1. USB charging
>>>>> 2. Transfers files
>>>>> 3. Transfer photos & videos
>>>>>
>>>>> The TV's media function gave me "no USB device attached" for all
>>>>> three.
>>>>
>>>> That's because the TV wants to see a (USB) 'mass storage
>>>> device',
>>>> which the (smart)phone isn't.
>>>>
>>>> In old Android versions, Android used to have a 'mass storage'
>>>> mode
>>>> for the USB connection, but that was later removed, because it
>>>> means you have two 'computers' (controllers) - the smartphone and
>>>> the (real) computer - *both* trying to control access to the
>>>> storage medium, which gives all kinds of (corruption, data loss,
>>>> etc.) problems.
>>>
>>> Corruption was avoided by the phone giving control totally to the
>>> computer xor totally to the phone. Thus the phone stopped working as
>>> a phone for the duration, and did not exercise permission control.
>>> When unplugged, the phone had to mount and rescan the storage.
>>
>> Well, at the time, I had several/many apps which had part of their
>> code on the SD-card - "Move to SD card" - (because Internal storage
>> was way, way too small) and I can tell you they got 'happily'
>> corrupted if the SD-card wasn't *manually* unmounted before using the
>> USB-connection (in 'mass storage' (or whatever was the term) mode) to
>> the computer.
>
> Never happened to me.

Ditto
>
>> It was broken-by-design and was removed when most Windows systems
>> had
>> MTP support. (Never mind the Mac and Linux users! :-))
>
> Probably I updated the phone late, so I was not affected by this, my
> linux supported mtp when I needed it :-)

Never had problems with MTP on any phone with any version of
Windows either.

Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> On 2023-09-06 11:47, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> > Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> >> On 2023-09-06 10:27, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> >>> Ed Cryer <ed@somewhere.in.the.uk> wrote:
> >>> [...]
> >>>
> >>>> I tried it into my TV's USB port.
> >>>> The phone gave me three options;
> >>>> 1. USB charging
> >>>> 2. Transfers files
> >>>> 3. Transfer photos & videos
> >>>>
> >>>> The TV's media function gave me "no USB device attached" for all three.
> >>>
> >>> That's because the TV wants to see a (USB) 'mass storage device',
> >>> which the (smart)phone isn't.
> >>>
> >>> In old Android versions, Android used to have a 'mass storage' mode
> >>> for the USB connection, but that was later removed, because it means you
> >>> have two 'computers' (controllers) - the smartphone and the (real)
> >>> computer - *both* trying to control access to the storage medium, which
> >>> gives all kinds of (corruption, data loss, etc.) problems.
> >>
> >> Corruption was avoided by the phone giving control totally to the
> >> computer xor totally to the phone. Thus the phone stopped working as a
> >> phone for the duration, and did not exercise permission control. When
> >> unplugged, the phone had to mount and rescan the storage.
> >
> > Well, at the time, I had several/many apps which had part of their
> > code on the SD-card - "Move to SD card" - (because Internal storage was
> > way, way too small) and I can tell you they got 'happily' corrupted if
> > the SD-card wasn't *manually* unmounted before using the USB-connection
> > (in 'mass storage' (or whatever was the term) mode) to the computer.
>
> Never happened to me.
>
> > It was broken-by-design and was removed when most Windows systems had
> > MTP support. (Never mind the Mac and Linux users! :-))
>
> Probably I updated the phone late, so I was not affected by this, my
> linux supported mtp when I needed it :-)

Yes, it was just a joke. On Linux MTP support was probably 'third
party', but on Linux, nearly everything is 'third party', where 'third
party' means exactly that, not part of Linux itself, but probably
include in most distributions.

For Mac, MTP support was and AFAIK is 'real' third party, i.e. it's
not included with the OS and you have to get it from somewhere.

Ed Cryer <ed@somewhere.in.the.uk> wrote:

> Hey, man, this discussion is looking more and more like one conducted
> in an iPhone/ iPad group. I'm used to and inured to those; Apple's
> ring-fencing is ancient news. But Windows has always shouted
> "open-ended" to me. I can only assume that MS are restricted here by
> Google's lawyers and bullies.

You moved the discussion (subthread) from connecting an Android phone to
a Windows 10 host to connecting an Android phone to an unidentified
television. Whether it be Windows or Android, smart TVs don't run
either OS in their full (bloated) form, and often run a completely
different OS. Even when they run a common OS, those are customized and
stripped down. Similarly, many cash registers still run Windows 98, but
a stripped down version (aka Windows IoT aka Windows Embedded;
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_IoT). As the cash register boots
up, you might glimpse the Windows startup screen. You don't get a
glimpse of what OS a TV uses.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_smart_TV_platforms

On 2023-09-07 06:49, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>> On 2023-09-06 11:47, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>> Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 2023-09-06 10:27, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>>>> Ed Cryer <ed@somewhere.in.the.uk> wrote:
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>
>>>>>> I tried it into my TV's USB port.
>>>>>> The phone gave me three options;
>>>>>> 1. USB charging
>>>>>> 2. Transfers files
>>>>>> 3. Transfer photos & videos
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The TV's media function gave me "no USB device attached" for all three.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's because the TV wants to see a (USB) 'mass storage device',
>>>>> which the (smart)phone isn't.
>>>>>
>>>>> In old Android versions, Android used to have a 'mass storage' mode
>>>>> for the USB connection, but that was later removed, because it means you
>>>>> have two 'computers' (controllers) - the smartphone and the (real)
>>>>> computer - *both* trying to control access to the storage medium, which
>>>>> gives all kinds of (corruption, data loss, etc.) problems.
>>>>
>>>> Corruption was avoided by the phone giving control totally to the
>>>> computer xor totally to the phone. Thus the phone stopped working as a
>>>> phone for the duration, and did not exercise permission control. When
>>>> unplugged, the phone had to mount and rescan the storage.
>>>
>>> Well, at the time, I had several/many apps which had part of their
>>> code on the SD-card - "Move to SD card" - (because Internal storage was
>>> way, way too small) and I can tell you they got 'happily' corrupted if
>>> the SD-card wasn't *manually* unmounted before using the USB-connection
>>> (in 'mass storage' (or whatever was the term) mode) to the computer.
>>
>> Never happened to me.
>>
>>> It was broken-by-design and was removed when most Windows systems had
>>> MTP support. (Never mind the Mac and Linux users! :-))
>>
>> Probably I updated the phone late, so I was not affected by this, my
>> linux supported mtp when I needed it :-)
>
> Yes, it was just a joke. On Linux MTP support was probably 'third
> party', but on Linux, nearly everything is 'third party', where 'third
> party' means exactly that, not part of Linux itself, but probably
> include in most distributions.

It is simply not part of the kernel, but implemented on userland.
Meaning, the desktop software does it (the file browser most likely).
There is also a CLI implementation.

>
> For Mac, MTP support was and AFAIK is 'real' third party, i.e. it's
> not included with the OS and you have to get it from somewhere.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

[Full text left, in case the answer lies in there.]

Ed Cryer <ed@somewhere.in.the.uk> wrote:
> VanguardLH wrote:
> > Ed Cryer <ed@somewhere.in.the.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> I tried it into my TV's USB port.
> >> The phone gave me three options;
> >> 1. USB charging
> >> 2. Transfers files
> >> 3. Transfer photos & videos
> >> The TV's media function gave me "no USB device attached" for all three.
> >>
> >> I can plug HDs and memory sticks into the TV and they're recognised.
> >> Maybe a micro-USB to HDMI cable would play directly onto the TV. But not
> >> needed, because I have an Apple TV device and I can pass files into it
> >> from the PC wirelessly.
> >
> > Windows and Android support PTP and MTP to transfer files. TVs want
> > just a storage device to find files. They aren't transferring files.
> >
> > Some TVs have limited support on their USB ports, like FAT32, 2 TB max
> > volume size, and only show limited filetypes of photo files, but won't
> > show movies. They expect the USB device to be a mass storage device,
> > not trying to transfer files between TV and USB device. My TV's USB
> > port is like that: 2TB max FAT32 volume, storage device (not media
> > transfer), and photos only. The fix was to attached the 4TB HDD USB
> > drive to my Blueray player's USB port. The BD player connects to the TV
> > using HDMI. The much cheaper BD player had a much smarter USB port than
> > does my "smart" TV.
> >
> > You found your own workaround. Another would be to use a Chromecast,
> > Roku, or other media player, that plugs into the HDMI port on the TV.
> > Some TVs have built-in Chromecast support, but you still have to use the
> > HDMI port on the TV. A smart TV is not a computer. It's a mess.
>
> Hey, man, this discussion is looking more and more like one conducted in
> an iPhone/ iPad group.
> I'm used to and inured to those; Apple's ring-fencing is ancient news.
> But Windows has always shouted "open-ended" to me.
> I can only assume that MS are restricted here by Google's lawyers and
> bullies.

Can you please elaborate on what you mean here?

Windows *is* "open-ended" in the sense that it (obviously) supports
MTP (and PTP). (Apple does not support MTP (only PTP) on its iPhones and
does not support MTP on macOS (needs third party software).)

So, in what way is Microsoft or/and Windows "restricted" and why would
that restriction have anything to do with Google?

"Inquiring minds want to know."

Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> On 2023-09-07 06:49, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> > Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> >> On 2023-09-06 11:47, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> >>> Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
> >>>> On 2023-09-06 10:27, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> >>>>> Ed Cryer <ed@somewhere.in.the.uk> wrote:
> >>>>> [...]
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> I tried it into my TV's USB port.
> >>>>>> The phone gave me three options;
> >>>>>> 1. USB charging
> >>>>>> 2. Transfers files
> >>>>>> 3. Transfer photos & videos
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> The TV's media function gave me "no USB device attached" for all three.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> That's because the TV wants to see a (USB) 'mass storage device',
> >>>>> which the (smart)phone isn't.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> In old Android versions, Android used to have a 'mass storage' mode
> >>>>> for the USB connection, but that was later removed, because it means you
> >>>>> have two 'computers' (controllers) - the smartphone and the (real)
> >>>>> computer - *both* trying to control access to the storage medium, which
> >>>>> gives all kinds of (corruption, data loss, etc.) problems.
> >>>>
> >>>> Corruption was avoided by the phone giving control totally to the
> >>>> computer xor totally to the phone. Thus the phone stopped working as a
> >>>> phone for the duration, and did not exercise permission control. When
> >>>> unplugged, the phone had to mount and rescan the storage.
> >>>
> >>> Well, at the time, I had several/many apps which had part of their
> >>> code on the SD-card - "Move to SD card" - (because Internal storage was
> >>> way, way too small) and I can tell you they got 'happily' corrupted if
> >>> the SD-card wasn't *manually* unmounted before using the USB-connection
> >>> (in 'mass storage' (or whatever was the term) mode) to the computer.
> >>
> >> Never happened to me.
> >>
> >>> It was broken-by-design and was removed when most Windows systems had
> >>> MTP support. (Never mind the Mac and Linux users! :-))
> >>
> >> Probably I updated the phone late, so I was not affected by this, my
> >> linux supported mtp when I needed it :-)
> >
> > Yes, it was just a joke. On Linux MTP support was probably 'third
> > party', but on Linux, nearly everything is 'third party', where 'third
> > party' means exactly that, not part of Linux itself, but probably
> > include in most distributions.
>
> It is simply not part of the kernel, but implemented on userland.
> Meaning, the desktop software does it (the file browser most likely).
> There is also a CLI implementation.

Yes, that's what I meant. My comment was partly tongue-in-cheek, but
strictly speaking, for some, anything not part of the kernel isn't
'Linux'.

'GNU/Linux naming controversy'
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU%2FLinux_naming_controversy>

FWIW, I've no axe to grind either way, but I must confess that I enjoy
rattling cages for 'sensitive' issues like this.

On 2023-09-07 13:00, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>> On 2023-09-07 06:49, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>> Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 2023-09-06 11:47, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>>>> Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> On 2023-09-06 10:27, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>>>>>> Ed Cryer <ed@somewhere.in.the.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I tried it into my TV's USB port.
>>>>>>>> The phone gave me three options;
>>>>>>>> 1. USB charging
>>>>>>>> 2. Transfers files
>>>>>>>> 3. Transfer photos & videos
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The TV's media function gave me "no USB device attached" for all three.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's because the TV wants to see a (USB) 'mass storage device',
>>>>>>> which the (smart)phone isn't.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In old Android versions, Android used to have a 'mass storage' mode
>>>>>>> for the USB connection, but that was later removed, because it means you
>>>>>>> have two 'computers' (controllers) - the smartphone and the (real)
>>>>>>> computer - *both* trying to control access to the storage medium, which
>>>>>>> gives all kinds of (corruption, data loss, etc.) problems.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Corruption was avoided by the phone giving control totally to the
>>>>>> computer xor totally to the phone. Thus the phone stopped working as a
>>>>>> phone for the duration, and did not exercise permission control. When
>>>>>> unplugged, the phone had to mount and rescan the storage.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, at the time, I had several/many apps which had part of their
>>>>> code on the SD-card - "Move to SD card" - (because Internal storage was
>>>>> way, way too small) and I can tell you they got 'happily' corrupted if
>>>>> the SD-card wasn't *manually* unmounted before using the USB-connection
>>>>> (in 'mass storage' (or whatever was the term) mode) to the computer.
>>>>
>>>> Never happened to me.
>>>>
>>>>> It was broken-by-design and was removed when most Windows systems had
>>>>> MTP support. (Never mind the Mac and Linux users! :-))
>>>>
>>>> Probably I updated the phone late, so I was not affected by this, my
>>>> linux supported mtp when I needed it :-)
>>>
>>> Yes, it was just a joke. On Linux MTP support was probably 'third
>>> party', but on Linux, nearly everything is 'third party', where 'third
>>> party' means exactly that, not part of Linux itself, but probably
>>> include in most distributions.
>>
>> It is simply not part of the kernel, but implemented on userland.
>> Meaning, the desktop software does it (the file browser most likely).
>> There is also a CLI implementation.
>
> Yes, that's what I meant. My comment was partly tongue-in-cheek, but
> strictly speaking, for some, anything not part of the kernel isn't
> 'Linux'.
>
> 'GNU/Linux naming controversy'
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU%2FLinux_naming_controversy>
>
> FWIW, I've no axe to grind either way, but I must confess that I enjoy
> rattling cages for 'sensitive' issues like this.

I don't care about what they say. They all come to me in a box that has
"Linux" printed on it.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

On 9/7/2023 1:00 PM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>> On 2023-09-07 06:49, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>> Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>>> On 2023-09-06 11:47, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>>>> Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>> On 2023-09-06 10:27, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>>>>>> Ed Cryer <ed@somewhere.in.the.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I tried it into my TV's USB port.
>>>>>>>> The phone gave me three options;
>>>>>>>> 1. USB charging
>>>>>>>> 2. Transfers files
>>>>>>>> 3. Transfer photos & videos
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The TV's media function gave me "no USB device attached" for all three.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That's because the TV wants to see a (USB) 'mass storage device',
>>>>>>> which the (smart)phone isn't.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> In old Android versions, Android used to have a 'mass storage' mode
>>>>>>> for the USB connection, but that was later removed, because it means you
>>>>>>> have two 'computers' (controllers) - the smartphone and the (real)
>>>>>>> computer - *both* trying to control access to the storage medium, which
>>>>>>> gives all kinds of (corruption, data loss, etc.) problems.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Corruption was avoided by the phone giving control totally to the
>>>>>> computer xor totally to the phone. Thus the phone stopped working as a
>>>>>> phone for the duration, and did not exercise permission control. When
>>>>>> unplugged, the phone had to mount and rescan the storage.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, at the time, I had several/many apps which had part of their
>>>>> code on the SD-card - "Move to SD card" - (because Internal storage was
>>>>> way, way too small) and I can tell you they got 'happily' corrupted if
>>>>> the SD-card wasn't *manually* unmounted before using the USB-connection
>>>>> (in 'mass storage' (or whatever was the term) mode) to the computer.
>>>>
>>>> Never happened to me.
>>>>
>>>>> It was broken-by-design and was removed when most Windows systems had
>>>>> MTP support. (Never mind the Mac and Linux users! :-))
>>>>
>>>> Probably I updated the phone late, so I was not affected by this, my
>>>> linux supported mtp when I needed it :-)
>>>
>>> Yes, it was just a joke. On Linux MTP support was probably 'third
>>> party', but on Linux, nearly everything is 'third party', where 'third
>>> party' means exactly that, not part of Linux itself, but probably
>>> include in most distributions.
>>
>> It is simply not part of the kernel, but implemented on userland.
>> Meaning, the desktop software does it (the file browser most likely).
>> There is also a CLI implementation.
>
> Yes, that's what I meant. My comment was partly tongue-in-cheek, but
> strictly speaking, for some, anything not part of the kernel isn't
> 'Linux'.
>
> 'GNU/Linux naming controversy'
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU%2FLinux_naming_controversy>
>
> FWIW, I've no axe to grind either way, but I must confess that I enjoy
> rattling cages for 'sensitive' issues like this.
>

You can mount a device using MTPfs, which might be FUSE based.

Otherwise, there might be some sort of separate dialog for it.

I don't have any MTP (no smartphone, no MTP camera, only
a USB Mass Storage camera), so I can't test and tell you how
easy this is.

MTP supports DRM (the "DoNotCopy" bit).

USB Mass Storage does not, and USB Mass Storage should always work.
With my camera, I could copy a Hollywood file into DCIM and
it would not care (not that this operation serves any purpose).

I do not know, in the Linux case, what "features" the MTP support, chooses to include.

If you check Wiki, MTP is a poorly-performing protocol, for which
Google attempted to add a few more options to improve the granularity.
I would not, for example, choose to work on large directories with it.
When mounted as MTPfs in Linux, it's just possible it could cache
directory access and work a bit better. Maybe Carlos knows. But
when not treated as a "filesystem", the protocol tends to be
"dumb and uncached".

Paul

On 9/7/2023 11:46 AM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
> [Full text left, in case the answer lies in there.]
>
> Ed Cryer <ed@somewhere.in.the.uk> wrote:
>> VanguardLH wrote:
>>> Ed Cryer <ed@somewhere.in.the.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I tried it into my TV's USB port.
>>>> The phone gave me three options;
>>>> 1. USB charging
>>>> 2. Transfers files
>>>> 3. Transfer photos & videos
>>>> The TV's media function gave me "no USB device attached" for all three.
>>>>
>>>> I can plug HDs and memory sticks into the TV and they're recognised.
>>>> Maybe a micro-USB to HDMI cable would play directly onto the TV. But not
>>>> needed, because I have an Apple TV device and I can pass files into it
>>>> from the PC wirelessly.
>>>
>>> Windows and Android support PTP and MTP to transfer files. TVs want
>>> just a storage device to find files. They aren't transferring files.
>>>
>>> Some TVs have limited support on their USB ports, like FAT32, 2 TB max
>>> volume size, and only show limited filetypes of photo files, but won't
>>> show movies. They expect the USB device to be a mass storage device,
>>> not trying to transfer files between TV and USB device. My TV's USB
>>> port is like that: 2TB max FAT32 volume, storage device (not media
>>> transfer), and photos only. The fix was to attached the 4TB HDD USB
>>> drive to my Blueray player's USB port. The BD player connects to the TV
>>> using HDMI. The much cheaper BD player had a much smarter USB port than
>>> does my "smart" TV.
>>>
>>> You found your own workaround. Another would be to use a Chromecast,
>>> Roku, or other media player, that plugs into the HDMI port on the TV.
>>> Some TVs have built-in Chromecast support, but you still have to use the
>>> HDMI port on the TV. A smart TV is not a computer. It's a mess.
>>
>> Hey, man, this discussion is looking more and more like one conducted in
>> an iPhone/ iPad group.
>> I'm used to and inured to those; Apple's ring-fencing is ancient news.
>> But Windows has always shouted "open-ended" to me.
>> I can only assume that MS are restricted here by Google's lawyers and
>> bullies.
>
> Can you please elaborate on what you mean here?
>
> Windows *is* "open-ended" in the sense that it (obviously) supports
> MTP (and PTP). (Apple does not support MTP (only PTP) on its iPhones and
> does not support MTP on macOS (needs third party software).)
>
> So, in what way is Microsoft or/and Windows "restricted" and why would
> that restriction have anything to do with Google?
>
> "Inquiring minds want to know."
>

Windows is extensible.

How do you think EXT2IFS was written ?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Installable_File_System

Windows IFS is the equivalent of Linux FUSE.

*******

The second kind of extensibility, is a SCSI layer for "foreign hardware".

When SATA was first invented, the stack used by the driver went:

device
|
SATA
SCSI
|
Windows <==== thinks it is talking to some SCSI device

When you installed a Silicon Image driver for a SIL3112 card,
the installer "ran twice", once to install the SATA part,
a second time to install the SCSI stub. Windows sends a
regular SCSI CDB (supports large devices), and the driver
stack converts that (eventually) to something the SATA device
can use. To convert a 12 byte CDB into a 48 bit LBA, should
be pretty simple.

Now that various "native" drivers are in the box,
the need for some parts of that story have changed.
MSAHCI might talk to your SATA device.

I'm trying to fix that, this very minute on Win10,
on my Optiplex refurb, and... it's not going well.
Inaccessible Boot Device. I need it to change from
IASTORV (or whatever the modern name is), to MSAHCI.

( https://answers.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/forum/all/how-to-enable-ahci-for-ssd-in-windows-10/18ee0b43-47a9-4344-b0c8-1e8546be2c82 )

Paul

VanguardLH wrote:
> Ed Cryer <ed@somewhere.in.the.uk> wrote:
>
>> Hey, man, this discussion is looking more and more like one conducted
>> in an iPhone/ iPad group. I'm used to and inured to those; Apple's
>> ring-fencing is ancient news. But Windows has always shouted
>> "open-ended" to me. I can only assume that MS are restricted here by
>> Google's lawyers and bullies.
>
> You moved the discussion (subthread) from connecting an Android phone to
> a Windows 10 host to connecting an Android phone to an unidentified
> television. Whether it be Windows or Android, smart TVs don't run
> either OS in their full (bloated) form, and often run a completely
> different OS. Even when they run a common OS, those are customized and
> stripped down. Similarly, many cash registers still run Windows 98, but
> a stripped down version (aka Windows IoT aka Windows Embedded;
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_IoT). As the cash register boots
> up, you might glimpse the Windows startup screen. You don't get a
> glimpse of what OS a TV uses.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_smart_TV_platforms

My case here is more than revelatory.
I changed cable and everything fell into place.
Now, the cables were unmarked. The one I first used I've been using
daily for years to charge phones.
OK, so I changed cables, then Windows 10 loaded valid and well written
drivers for two different phones, and the whole storage of the phones
became available.

But I plug the phones into Samsung, Panasonic and JVC TVs and no go.
Android into those systems fails; just as it does into Apple products.
And who owns Android? Google does; they bought it in 2005.

Ed

On 2023-09-07 14:41, Paul wrote:
> On 9/7/2023 1:00 PM, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>> Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 2023-09-07 06:49, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>>> Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>>>> On 2023-09-06 11:47, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>>>>> Carlos E. R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 2023-09-06 10:27, Frank Slootweg wrote:
>>>>>>>> Ed Cryer <ed@somewhere.in.the.uk> wrote:
>>>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I tried it into my TV's USB port.
>>>>>>>>> The phone gave me three options;
>>>>>>>>> 1. USB charging
>>>>>>>>> 2. Transfers files
>>>>>>>>> 3. Transfer photos & videos
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The TV's media function gave me "no USB device attached" for all three.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That's because the TV wants to see a (USB) 'mass storage device',
>>>>>>>> which the (smart)phone isn't.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> In old Android versions, Android used to have a 'mass storage' mode
>>>>>>>> for the USB connection, but that was later removed, because it means you
>>>>>>>> have two 'computers' (controllers) - the smartphone and the (real)
>>>>>>>> computer - *both* trying to control access to the storage medium, which
>>>>>>>> gives all kinds of (corruption, data loss, etc.) problems.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Corruption was avoided by the phone giving control totally to the
>>>>>>> computer xor totally to the phone. Thus the phone stopped working as a
>>>>>>> phone for the duration, and did not exercise permission control. When
>>>>>>> unplugged, the phone had to mount and rescan the storage.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, at the time, I had several/many apps which had part of their
>>>>>> code on the SD-card - "Move to SD card" - (because Internal storage was
>>>>>> way, way too small) and I can tell you they got 'happily' corrupted if
>>>>>> the SD-card wasn't *manually* unmounted before using the USB-connection
>>>>>> (in 'mass storage' (or whatever was the term) mode) to the computer.
>>>>>
>>>>> Never happened to me.
>>>>>
>>>>>> It was broken-by-design and was removed when most Windows systems had
>>>>>> MTP support. (Never mind the Mac and Linux users! :-))
>>>>>
>>>>> Probably I updated the phone late, so I was not affected by this, my
>>>>> linux supported mtp when I needed it :-)
>>>>
>>>> Yes, it was just a joke. On Linux MTP support was probably 'third
>>>> party', but on Linux, nearly everything is 'third party', where 'third
>>>> party' means exactly that, not part of Linux itself, but probably
>>>> include in most distributions.
>>>
>>> It is simply not part of the kernel, but implemented on userland.
>>> Meaning, the desktop software does it (the file browser most likely).
>>> There is also a CLI implementation.
>>
>> Yes, that's what I meant. My comment was partly tongue-in-cheek, but
>> strictly speaking, for some, anything not part of the kernel isn't
>> 'Linux'.
>>
>> 'GNU/Linux naming controversy'
>> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU%2FLinux_naming_controversy>
>>
>> FWIW, I've no axe to grind either way, but I must confess that I enjoy
>> rattling cages for 'sensitive' issues like this.
>>
>
> You can mount a device using MTPfs, which might be FUSE based.
>
> Otherwise, there might be some sort of separate dialog for it.
>
> I don't have any MTP (no smartphone, no MTP camera, only
> a USB Mass Storage camera), so I can't test and tell you how
> easy this is.
>
> MTP supports DRM (the "DoNotCopy" bit).
>
> USB Mass Storage does not, and USB Mass Storage should always work.
> With my camera, I could copy a Hollywood file into DCIM and
> it would not care (not that this operation serves any purpose).
>
> I do not know, in the Linux case, what "features" the MTP support, chooses to include.
>
> If you check Wiki, MTP is a poorly-performing protocol, for which
> Google attempted to add a few more options to improve the granularity.
> I would not, for example, choose to work on large directories with it.
> When mounted as MTPfs in Linux, it's just possible it could cache
> directory access and work a bit better. Maybe Carlos knows. But
> when not treated as a "filesystem", the protocol tends to be
> "dumb and uncached".

No, sorry, I do not know.

--
Cheers,
Carlos E.R.

Ed Cryer <ed@somewhere.in.the.uk> wrote:

> I changed cable and everything fell into place.
> Now, the cables were unmarked. The one I first used I've been using
> daily for years to charge phones.

When I got a phone that supplied a charge-only cable, I tossed the cable
into the trash, and replaced with a full USB cable. A full cable will
do charging, but also carries the signal lines. I don't remember ever
seeing any marking on the charge-only USB cable labelling its
limitation. I didn't keep the charge-only cables just in case I got
screwed later picking the wrong type of cable out of the storage drawer.

> OK, so I changed cables, then Windows 10 loaded valid and well written
> drivers for two different phones, and the whole storage of the phones
> became available.

Actually no driver per se is involved. The Android and Windows already
support MTP, and an .inf file is used to define the mass storage device.
For the vast majority of USB devices, an .inf file is used. Windows
already comes bundled with lots of .inf file; else, you have to get the
one provided by the hardware vendor. Windows has always come bundled
with lots of drivers, but eventually MS switch to INF files which used a
common driver file, like usb.inf.

https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-hardware/drivers/install/overview-of-inf-files

..inf files are text files, so you can use a text editor to view them.
I've had to do this when searching for which .inf file applied to which
device.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INF_file

Only because the drives on the Android phone appear as mass storage
devices is why Windows can already handle that USB device. If you want
to do more, like mirror the Android phone's screen to a Windows host,
you typically have to install the ADB (Android DeBug) driver on Windows,
and enable USB Debug mode on the phone. Likely the drives accessed via
USB on the Android phone will have Windows use the usb.inf file that it
uses for most mass storage devices. Handling mass storage devices is
automatic. Doing more with the Android phone on Windows takes more
manual intervention by the user.
> But I plug the phones into Samsung, Panasonic and JVC TVs and no go.
> Android into those systems fails; just as it does into Apple products.
> And who owns Android? Google does; they bought it in 2005.

Alas a brand of TV may not use the same OS across all models, or even
for submodels, by that brand. Samsung may use Viewd (aka Opera TV),
Roku OS, Yahoo! Smart TV (aka Yahoo! Connected TV), Shijui TV, or
Samsung's own Smart TV. These are embedded operating systems, not
general-purpose OS'es, like Windows or Linux. The TV OS gets stripped
down to just what functions the TV maker wants to support, and nothing
more. They need to burn the OS into the lowest ROM factor to reduce
cost, and you'd be surprised how much the Marketing Dept can fuck up a
hardware design.

Android is a modified version of a Linux kernel, and is developed by a
group of devs called Open Handset Alliance (35 members, including
Google), but the most widely use version is a distro from Google. The
OHA was established in Nov 2007. Like Chrome which is based on the
open-source Chromium project with proprietary components added by
Google, Android is also an open-source project with some proprietary
components added by Google, like the Play Store services.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_(operating_system)#AOSP

Google has a lot of influence, but they don't own the Android OS. In
fact, considering the amount of customization on Android by phone makers
to add/change features, and support the actual hardware of the phone,
you don't get Android OS. You get a phone maker's customized version.
There really isn't just one version of the Android OS. Also, there are
de-Googled versions of Android. There are also non-Google alternatives
to Google's Play Store services. Probably due to Android being open
source (and then customized by phone makers).

Ed Cryer <ed@somewhere.in.the.uk> wrote:
> VanguardLH wrote:
> > Ed Cryer <ed@somewhere.in.the.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> Hey, man, this discussion is looking more and more like one conducted
> >> in an iPhone/ iPad group. I'm used to and inured to those; Apple's
> >> ring-fencing is ancient news. But Windows has always shouted
> >> "open-ended" to me. I can only assume that MS are restricted here by
> >> Google's lawyers and bullies.
> >
> > You moved the discussion (subthread) from connecting an Android phone to
> > a Windows 10 host to connecting an Android phone to an unidentified
> > television. Whether it be Windows or Android, smart TVs don't run
> > either OS in their full (bloated) form, and often run a completely
> > different OS. Even when they run a common OS, those are customized and
> > stripped down. Similarly, many cash registers still run Windows 98, but
> > a stripped down version (aka Windows IoT aka Windows Embedded;
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_IoT). As the cash register boots
> > up, you might glimpse the Windows startup screen. You don't get a
> > glimpse of what OS a TV uses.
> >
> > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_smart_TV_platforms
>
> My case here is more than revelatory.
> I changed cable and everything fell into place.
> Now, the cables were unmarked. The one I first used I've been using
> daily for years to charge phones.
> OK, so I changed cables, then Windows 10 loaded valid and well written
> drivers for two different phones, and the whole storage of the phones
> became available.
>
> But I plug the phones into Samsung, Panasonic and JVC TVs and no go.
> Android into those systems fails; just as it does into Apple products.
> And who owns Android? Google does; they bought it in 2005.

(IMO,) There's no conspiracy, just technical limitations.

As mentioned earlier in the thread, an Android phone can no longer be
made to look like a 'mass storage device' (i.e. similar to a USB
memory-stick, a (SD) memory-card, USB HDD/SSD, etc.), because of the
'two computers/controllers (smartphone and TV) trying to control/access
the same storage' problem.

The TVs *do* support 'mass storage devices', but do *not* support MTP.

Result: Catch-22.

Could the TVs implement MTP support? Of course they could. Is that
Google's fault? Of course not, Google doesn't hold the IP of MTP. If
anybody does, it's Microsoft which holds that IP, but AFAIK, MTP is more
or less open and royalty-free, but feel free to check [1].

Bottom line: 'Just' convince Samsung, Panasonic, JVC et al, to
implement MTP support and Bob's your uncle! :-)

[1] 'Media Transfer Protocol'
<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Transfer_Protocol>

VanguardLH wrote:
> Ed Cryer <ed@somewhere.in.the.uk> wrote:
>
>> I changed cable and everything fell into place.
>> Now, the cables were unmarked. The one I first used I've been using
>> daily for years to charge phones.
>
> When I got a phone that supplied a charge-only cable, I tossed the cable
> into the trash, and replaced with a full USB cable. A full cable will
> do charging, but also carries the signal lines. I don't remember ever
> seeing any marking on the charge-only USB cable labelling its
> limitation. I didn't keep the charge-only cables just in case I got
> screwed later picking the wrong type of cable out of the storage drawer.
>
>> OK, so I changed cables, then Windows 10 loaded valid and well written
>> drivers for two different phones, and the whole storage of the phones
>> became available.
>
> Actually no driver per se is involved. The Android and Windows already
> support MTP, and an .inf file is used to define the mass storage device.
> For the vast majority of USB devices, an .inf file is used. Windows
> already comes bundled with lots of .inf file; else, you have to get the
> one provided by the hardware vendor. Windows has always come bundled
> with lots of drivers, but eventually MS switch to INF files which used a
> common driver file, like usb.inf.
>
> https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-hardware/drivers/install/overview-of-inf-files
>
> .inf files are text files, so you can use a text editor to view them.
> I've had to do this when searching for which .inf file applied to which
> device.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/INF_file
>
> Only because the drives on the Android phone appear as mass storage
> devices is why Windows can already handle that USB device. If you want
> to do more, like mirror the Android phone's screen to a Windows host,
> you typically have to install the ADB (Android DeBug) driver on Windows,
> and enable USB Debug mode on the phone. Likely the drives accessed via
> USB on the Android phone will have Windows use the usb.inf file that it
> uses for most mass storage devices. Handling mass storage devices is
> automatic. Doing more with the Android phone on Windows takes more
> manual intervention by the user.
>
>> But I plug the phones into Samsung, Panasonic and JVC TVs and no go.
>> Android into those systems fails; just as it does into Apple products.
>> And who owns Android? Google does; they bought it in 2005.
>
> Alas a brand of TV may not use the same OS across all models, or even
> for submodels, by that brand. Samsung may use Viewd (aka Opera TV),
> Roku OS, Yahoo! Smart TV (aka Yahoo! Connected TV), Shijui TV, or
> Samsung's own Smart TV. These are embedded operating systems, not
> general-purpose OS'es, like Windows or Linux. The TV OS gets stripped
> down to just what functions the TV maker wants to support, and nothing
> more. They need to burn the OS into the lowest ROM factor to reduce
> cost, and you'd be surprised how much the Marketing Dept can fuck up a
> hardware design.
>
> Android is a modified version of a Linux kernel, and is developed by a
> group of devs called Open Handset Alliance (35 members, including
> Google), but the most widely use version is a distro from Google. The
> OHA was established in Nov 2007. Like Chrome which is based on the
> open-source Chromium project with proprietary components added by
> Google, Android is also an open-source project with some proprietary
> components added by Google, like the Play Store services.
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_(operating_system)#AOSP
>
> Google has a lot of influence, but they don't own the Android OS. In
> fact, considering the amount of customization on Android by phone makers
> to add/change features, and support the actual hardware of the phone,
> you don't get Android OS. You get a phone maker's customized version.
> There really isn't just one version of the Android OS. Also, there are
> de-Googled versions of Android. There are also non-Google alternatives
> to Google's Play Store services. Probably due to Android being open
> source (and then customized by phone makers).

What a morass! But I see that you've managed to find a pathway through
it all, from which to survey the mess. And now you can see why we call
Windows "open-ended"; it's simply that it has a large d.base of drivers
freely available.

Ed

Frank Slootweg wrote:
> Ed Cryer <ed@somewhere.in.the.uk> wrote:
>> VanguardLH wrote:
>>> Ed Cryer <ed@somewhere.in.the.uk> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Hey, man, this discussion is looking more and more like one conducted
>>>> in an iPhone/ iPad group. I'm used to and inured to those; Apple's
>>>> ring-fencing is ancient news. But Windows has always shouted
>>>> "open-ended" to me. I can only assume that MS are restricted here by
>>>> Google's lawyers and bullies.
>>>
>>> You moved the discussion (subthread) from connecting an Android phone to
>>> a Windows 10 host to connecting an Android phone to an unidentified
>>> television. Whether it be Windows or Android, smart TVs don't run
>>> either OS in their full (bloated) form, and often run a completely
>>> different OS. Even when they run a common OS, those are customized and
>>> stripped down. Similarly, many cash registers still run Windows 98, but
>>> a stripped down version (aka Windows IoT aka Windows Embedded;
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_IoT). As the cash register boots
>>> up, you might glimpse the Windows startup screen. You don't get a
>>> glimpse of what OS a TV uses.
>>>
>>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_smart_TV_platforms
>>
>> My case here is more than revelatory.
>> I changed cable and everything fell into place.
>> Now, the cables were unmarked. The one I first used I've been using
>> daily for years to charge phones.
>> OK, so I changed cables, then Windows 10 loaded valid and well written
>> drivers for two different phones, and the whole storage of the phones
>> became available.
>>
>> But I plug the phones into Samsung, Panasonic and JVC TVs and no go.
>> Android into those systems fails; just as it does into Apple products.
>> And who owns Android? Google does; they bought it in 2005.
>
> (IMO,) There's no conspiracy, just technical limitations.
>
> As mentioned earlier in the thread, an Android phone can no longer be
> made to look like a 'mass storage device' (i.e. similar to a USB
> memory-stick, a (SD) memory-card, USB HDD/SSD, etc.), because of the
> 'two computers/controllers (smartphone and TV) trying to control/access
> the same storage' problem.
>
> The TVs *do* support 'mass storage devices', but do *not* support MTP.
>
> Result: Catch-22.
>
> Could the TVs implement MTP support? Of course they could. Is that
> Google's fault? Of course not, Google doesn't hold the IP of MTP. If
> anybody does, it's Microsoft which holds that IP, but AFAIK, MTP is more
> or less open and royalty-free, but feel free to check [1].
>
> Bottom line: 'Just' convince Samsung, Panasonic, JVC et al, to
> implement MTP support and Bob's your uncle! :-)
>
> [1] 'Media Transfer Protocol'
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Media_Transfer_Protocol>

LOL, Frank. You're a bigger optimist than I am (;-

Do you seriously expect me to open negotiations with all those corporate
mammoths, and put to them the simple suggestion that they implement a
freely available piece of software that will do their product a great
deal of good with the users?

Your youthful ardour is admirable. Do you have the patience and savvy to
follow it through?

Oh, and while you're at it, why not contact Apple and get them to
implement a USB port on the iPad Pro?

Ed

Ed Cryer <ed@somewhere.in.the.uk> wrote:
> VanguardLH wrote:
> > Ed Cryer <ed@somewhere.in.the.uk> wrote:
> >
> ...................
> ...................
> >
> > Just like the phone needs to be configured to enable file transfer move
> > via USB, you need to use a /full/ USB cable. A charge-only USB cable
> > only has the +5V and ground lines. You want a USB cable that also has
> > the 2 differential signal lines for data transfer.
>
> This is the one that did the trick. I used a different cable, Windows
> recognised phone (Alcatel 3L) and loaded drivers.

If you didn't ditch the charge-only cable, you might want to have a
look at the (USB-A) plug. It should *not* have a USB-logo (the kind-of
trident icon). Only real/full USB cables are allowed to have that logo.

Did you ever try to actually use that charge-only cable for charging?
If so, it probably would have charged very slowly - at only 100mA -,
unless the cable was internally wired to signal the charger to supply
more current or/and the charger was 'broken' and did not comply with the
USB charging protocols.

On 05/09/2023 09:09, Ed Cryer wrote:
> VanguardLH wrote:
>> Ed Cryer <ed@somewhere.in.the.uk> wrote:
>>
> ...................
> ...................
>>
>> Just like the phone needs to be configured to enable file transfer move
>> via USB, you need to use a /full/ USB cable.  A charge-only USB cable
>> only has the +5V and ground lines.  You want a USB cable that also has
>> the 2 differential signal lines for data transfer.
>
> This is the one that did the trick. I used a different cable, Windows
> recognised phone (Alcatel 3L) and loaded drivers.
> However, it says that the folder is empty.
>
> Ed
>
>
Are you signed in on the Phone? if not then you will only see a blank on
the WinExplorer mention of the phone.