Ability to add sub albums/folders

[giulz7]

It would be good to organise albums into sub-albums to tidy things up.
Rather than everything all in one place it would be good to have seperate main albums such as "Phone Backup", "Personal", "Shared" which can contains albums within.

[hadrienj]

Totally agree, it would be great!

[mxmehl]

Without sounding too +1sy, let me add that I tried achieving this with tags but that became messy quickly.

Especially for people who previously organised their photos in folders and subfolders (e.g. to separate work and private photos, have albums for vacations etc) the flat structure of Ente albums is inconvenient. The only solution right now is giving these albums long names indicating some kind of structure, but with many folders that, again, becomes very messy.

Thank you for considering this feature!

[BifrostTenmei]

This feature is the main reason I use iCloud Photos and it would be great to have it in Ente

[hhannis]

downloaded the app… see there is no folders structure…. just left.. djesus….

[fronglemog]

Lack of a nested album structure is the only thing holding me back from going all-in with ente photos.

My photos are categorised firstly in folders by year, and then by event, particular date, person or topic. Allowing me to replicate this in ente would be a godsend.

[TheAntemundane]

Same here, once nested folders/albums are possible, I will definitely switch

[mckeyzhang]

Lack of a nested album structure is the only thing holding me back from going all-in with ente photos.
------------Can't agree more. I'm going back now, but i will come back when ente supports nested album structure.

[vtmocanu]

Currently on nextcloud (also sorting by year and then subfolders), but looking to switch to ente once/if nested albums become available.
Is this something that is considered for the future?

[highschooldropout]

Any word from the devs? This is a much needed feature. It's very clear that users want it.

[brog-io]

Are there plans for nested albums?
I guess we've to make plans. It's something that I'm not very fond of because I feel organization can be done better with tags. But those are my personal use cases.

In general, community has been asking for this quite a bit, so we will give nested albums. There's no way around it.

• https://ente.io/blog/ama-with-ente-ceo/

[highschooldropout]

That's great but an acknowledgement only goes so far. People have been requesting this for a while at this point.

[psmyles]

Really missing the structure of nested albums / folders for organizing albums.

[iadaz]

This is also a must for me. All our family photographs are organised into one folder structure on a PC, with sub-folders for years and then months/events under those. I have nearly 500 folders, and I've backed these up with the option to create an album for each folder, but now I can't share the whole lot with the family members I've invited into my account. It looks like I'd have to delete everything and start uploading everything again, losing the organisation of the files in Ente, or share all 500 albums manually! I've paid for a month to try it out properly and now I'm not sure if it's a good fit or not. But hey, it's still miles better than Amazon Photos!

[ihatetochooseanick]

I'm new to Ente. I like it but skeptical to subscribe to the premium plan due to the lack of nested folders feature. I read somewhere that this feature might be added to Ente. When will this feature be added?

[dpzdzr]

Ability to use subdirectories is really needed.

[gplr]

I was testing out ente only to find out, that nested albums are missing. Too bad. I'll guess I have to wait untill this feature is here. Until then I'll have stick to some other solution.

[Phisolophi]

I've already subscibed to ente.io and really love it. I'm already "all-in with 1TB. But the subfolder feature is something what i really miss!

Tags are really nice to have but that isn't as helpful as subfolders would be. Please consider this feature request in the next releases. Thank you ente.io team!

[HarriBuh]

Since more and more users are backing this feature, but nobody from the dev team seems to care: How certain it is for any activity on this forum to get attention?

[brog-io]

In their Q&A a month or so ago. They mentioned there are plans. But that the AI features got priority. So now that is done, they should start with this soon. I do think there working on video streaming first though. Since that is also an highly upvotes feature.

Don't worry they're not ignoring us

[HarriBuh]

It's a shame that they obviously focus more on popular demands than on practical, useful ones. That's going in the wrong direction of a serious brand, in my opinion. Anyway, thanks for the info.

[cedric25]

Waiting for this as well.
There are some mentions about this on Ente's Discord: "subfolders is under consideration" (May 2024)
It's probably a complex feature to add...

[mhettig]

I agree to @OsmoticAbsorption. I don’t mind having a flat album hierarchy if there is the additional possibility to browse the original folder structure (like in Nextcloud or Immich).

Btw I observed a mismatch in the documentation in this regard. In the export section it is said:

Does the exported data preserve folder structure?
Yes. When you export your data for local backup, it will maintain the exact album structure how you have set up within Ente.

What bothers me is that “folder structure” and “album structure” is not the same. Especially together with the statement from the albums section:

Ente albums cannot be nested currently.

So does that mean when I export my data from Ente to a local machine, that the initial folder structure (I used during upload) will be gone and everything will be flattened?

My suggestions:

1. Change the FAQ entry from “Does the exported data preserve folder structure?” to “Does the exported data preserve album structure?”
2. Add an additional entry in the FAQ: “Does Ente preserve the initial folder structure I uploaded my data with?” -> no
3. Allow browsing by folder structure in Ente ;)

[vishnukvmd]

Thanks, I've updated the docs to clarify that Ente preserves the album structure.

[toxl]

Seeing soon the option of structuring by nested albums / folders for organizing albums would be very much appreciated!

[CFPrulez]

Much appreciated if this feature is implemented soon.

Just a side note: It's not only about sub-folders but also about sub-sub-folders etc.

A folder structure like it can be done on any file system.
Many people organize in a folder structure like category / topic-event / year / month, having multiple sub-folders.

It is essential to be able to mirror the entire folder structure to ensure regular syncing between file system (OS) and Ente.

I have about 1 TB of photos/videos and hundrets or even thousands of subfolders.
It's impossible to flatten the well organized structure—with the current state (everything on the same level in album(s)), I cannot migrate to Ente.

[loesvs]

I just migrated a PC folder containing 20 years of pictures into Ente, only to realize afterwards that most of those had a subfolder "selection" to easily show a small subset of pictures of each event/holiday/... to friends. So in Ente, I now have about a 100 random albums called "selection". Oops.

[maciekberry]

Hello Guys,

A +1 message here, but a highly motivated one: I am willing to spend some money with you the day this feature is implemented. The timing is very good actually, because one of your competitors (https://www.getmonument.com/) went bust, their device does not work anymore and we are many to look for an alternative. And because we are NOT coming from the ultra-simplistic world of Google photos, the nested structure is a must have here.

We are approaching the Q4 2025. Any ETA to communicate, please?

[ArminShupuk]

Rather than implementing traditional nested folders, I propose introducing Spaces for logical separation and flexible access control. This approach would transform Ente's current fixed categories (Uncategorized, Archive, Hidden, Trash) into configurable spaces with defined attributes.

Technical Implementation

The existing special-purpose areas would map to the new architecture as follows:

Current State → Proposed Space Configuration
- Hidden      → Space { needs_auth: true, show_in_memories: false, show_in_gallery: false, allow_dedupe: true, allow_upload: true }
- Archive     → Space { needs_auth: false, show_in_memories: false, show_in_gallery: false, allow_dedupe: true, allow_upload: false }
- Default     → Space { needs_auth: false, show_in_memories: true, show_in_gallery: true, allow_dedupe: true, allow_upload: true }
- Trash       → Per-space system folder (retained)
- Uncategorized → Per-space system folder (retained)

Each user-created space would have:

• Exclusive ownership - each photo/video exists in exactly one space at any given time
• Unique identifier and user-defined name
• Authentication attribute (needs_auth: boolean) - requires additional authentication for access
• Memory inclusion (show_in_memories: boolean) - controls whether content appears in memory features
• Gallery aggregation (show_in_gallery: boolean) - determines if albums appear in the main gallery view
• Deduplication control (allow_dedupe: boolean) - enables/disables deduplication within the space
• Upload permission (allow_upload: boolean) - controls whether new content can be added to the space
• Additional attributes can be added as needed

Gallery View Behavior

The show_in_gallery attribute enables flexible viewing modes:

• When one or more spaces have show_in_gallery: true, their albums appear in the main gallery view
• Spaces themselves appear below the album list (similar to current Archive/Hidden placement)
• When no space has show_in_gallery: true, the main view displays only a list of available spaces

This allows users to choose between:

1. Unified view - mixing albums from selected spaces in the main gallery
2. Segregated view - treating each space as a completely separate collection

Implementation Benefits

This architecture addresses multiple pain points:

1. Solves the subfolder hierarchy problem without the complexity of true nested structures. Users can create spaces like "Work", "Documents", "Artwork" that function as top-level organizational units.

2. Fixes the archive/hidden view limitations (Option to browse / scroll the albums on the archive page vertically #5302) by using the standard album grid view for all spaces, eliminating the problematic horizontal scrolling interface.

3. Resolves multi-album archival conflicts (Pictures in multiple albums are archived if one of the albums is archived #3047) since photos exist in only one space, eliminating the current ambiguity when a photo in multiple albums has conflicting archive states.

4. Enhances security granularity (Hidden Item Folder/Album - Option for PIN protect #636) by allowing different authentication requirements per space rather than a monolithic hidden section.

5. Improves sharing semantics (Fix sharing of hidden albums #1571) as spaces provide clear boundaries for what's being shared and their security requirements.

6. Provides granular memory control - users can exclude entire spaces from memories without hiding them completely.

7. Enables archival workflows - spaces with allow_upload: false can serve as read-only archives, preventing accidental modifications. Additional flags could prevent any modifications if needed.

8. Supports duplicate management strategies - users can disable deduplication for spaces where they intentionally want to keep duplicates (e.g., client deliverables).

Technical Advantages

From an engineering perspective, this approach offers several benefits:

• Scalable permissions model - attributes can be extended without breaking existing functionality in the future (show_on_map, share_face_recognition, allow_sharing, etc.)
• Better performance - potential to improve loading and resource usage by ignoring elements from other spaces in many contexts through fine-tuned permission models

Use Case Examples

A typical user might configure:

• General space (needs_auth: false, show_in_memories: true, show_in_gallery: true, allow_dedupe: true, allow_upload: true)
• Work space (needs_auth: false, show_in_memories: false, show_in_gallery: false, allow_dedupe: true, allow_upload: true)
• Documents space (needs_auth: false, show_in_memories: false, show_in_gallery: false, allow_dedupe: false, allow_upload: true)
• Archive space (needs_auth: false, show_in_memories: false, show_in_gallery: false, allow_dedupe: true, allow_upload: false)
• Confidential space (needs_auth: true, show_in_memories: false, show_in_gallery: false, allow_dedupe: true, allow_upload: true)
• Gross space (needs_auth: true, show_in_memories: false, show_in_gallery: false, allow_dedupe: true, allow_upload: true)
• Private space (needs_auth: true, show_in_memories: false, show_in_gallery: false, allow_dedupe: true, allow_upload: true)

There are many different reasons to keep pictures private. They might contain confidential data, be from past relationships, or be images that must be retained for work purposes but aren't pleasant to look at. The current hidden approach really doesn't cut it.

This provides the organizational separation many users need without the complexity of deeply nested hierarchies that would complicate sync, sharing, and UI consistency.

From my perspective, this would be the ideal solution. Implementation would primarily require adding a space ID column and updating views/queries, with permission logic implemented in just a few key places. Unlike a subfolder approach, no major rewrite of complex logic would be needed. More sophisticated permission features could be implemented incrementally over time.

[CFPrulez]

@ArminShupuk

Solves the subfolder hierarchy problem without the complexity of true nested structures. Users can create spaces like "Work", "Documents", "Artwork" that function as top-level organizational units.

But does this really allow regular syncing between nested folder structures on the file system and perserving the structure on Ente?

Ente must be able to mirror the full nested structure to ensure that it's guaranteed that changes (i.e. additional photos) on any of the existing folders/levels is catched and properly backed up in Ente in the correct folder/album.

It's useless if there is no (logical) 1:1 mapping between user's file system (sub-sub-…-folder structure) and Ente's navigation. That's what's missing today and that is what prevents lots of users from migrating. Users will not start creating any kind of spaces or something like that manually.

There are TBs of files and hundrets of nested folders. Either Ente can handle that properly, or it is not (yet) the right solution.

[ArminShupuk]

@CFPrulez This is a balanced approach that provides one sub-level without introducing a deeply nested file system. As I understand it, the Ente team's motivation is to develop superior smart sorting features that will eventually minimize the need for manual organization. We already have maps, face recognition, and automatic people tagging. It would be better to focus on implementing features like SQL views where we could define time frames, people, and locations to automatically generate the albums we need. I'm confident this is what the Ente team envisions and what's now achievable with AI.

The traditional approach of perfectly organized file structures won't be necessary long-term. However, it absolutely makes sense to separate data that has no connection to each other or that we don't want connected (hence spaces). Subfolders organized by year/month, for example, don't make sense in an app that can handle this automatically—the same applies to most other structures. While Ente currently lacks robust sorting options, I believe the correct approach is to implement more smart sorting features rather than taking the easy route of adding deeply nested subfolders. It would be helpful if users in this thread could describe their current subfolder structures so we could identify missing sorting/filtering features.

For syncing, we could map a nested structure with a depth limit of 1 to [space]/[album]. That should be sufficient for most users.

I understand this means abandoning established workflows, but I believe we can now do so efficiently and elegantly with AI and a strong sort/filter UI. I doubt there's any structure that can't be replicated with two levels (spaces/albums) plus filtering/sorting, especially when leveraging AI capabilities.

Try to look at it without being constrained by your current workflow. In five years, few people will be manually sorting pictures. AI will handle this. We could even have a search bar in Ente that lets us prompt for specific albums, like "I'm with person A, B, and C and we want to relive our 20s," and get a perfectly curated album. It's already possible, just not implemented yet. I'd rather spend my time adding context to pictures/videos like dates, locations, and people, and let the app handle the rest—context is the only thing Ente doesn't already have and needs from us. The rest it can figure out on its own.

[maciekberry]

Hey here,

I would like to react to the message by ArminShupuk above:
#552 (comment)

While I think your proposal is indeed very interesting, it does not solve the same problem we are dicussing here. Spaces are useful for cases when you want to split photos into... well, Spaces (work/home is a good example). But this absolutely does not tackle the point of the structure.

Actually, the most important thing is to see that there are two different cultures of taking photos and this means we have two groups of users:

1/ A lot of people just take photos using their phone. The photos are organized in a single list and the people use built-in features of the phone operating system to find and browse the photos in the list. Yes - AI is and will be helping tremendously here. These people tend to have hundreds or thousands of photos in their "memory" and these photos have all the metadata needed and precise (time, location, etc). This is the market for google photos, apple photos and today's Ente.

2/ There are also people that take the photos with several devices: phone(s) but also digital cameras. These people then spend time treating the images, organizing them (copying to a single place) and they need to store them in their own structure. For this users, the manual sorting is an essential part of this workflow and cannot be replaced at all for many reasons. What's more important, these people tend to have many more photos: often tens of thousands plus lots of them being actualy digitalized versions of old pictures (so no clean metadata).

There are dedicated products for the category 2 but they tend to target the professional photographers (which is a yet another category of users), they are very expensive, and have many useless features (like photo markets, etc).

With the sub folders feature, Ente will clearly be able to addres this (not that small) group of users. The 174 upvotes in github shows that as well :)

[iadaz]

I had been mulling over ArminShupuk's comment with the intention of replying. It's obviously very well thought out, and has a lot of merit. But I agree it answers a slightly different requirement and @maciekberry's comment here articulates it perfectly. I am in category 2, and Ente either needs to make a compelling case for me to change my whole mindset, or cater for category 2. The thought of just abandoning the workflow and organisation I've used for years and letting AI tell me how it should be, just fills me with dread.

[Innovato-uk]

Nested Albums will make me more likely to switch to a paid a/c.
Currently most of my personal and work pics are in Google Photos via a G/Workspace a/c and their lack of nested albums is a real pain.
Currently have over 100gb but plan to digitise 30 years of family photos so will mount up.

Multiple sub layers would be neat. Anyone know how many might be possible when feature arrives?

[ArminShupuk]

@maciekberry @iadaz I appreciate the discussion, particularly the distinction between the two user groups you've identified. That framework of mobile-first versus multi-device professional users is useful for understanding the different organizational needs at play here. While Spaces does limit depth compared to unlimited nesting, it's actually targeting the same core issue, just with a different philosophy about what depth is actually needed.

The main point regarding folder structures is not to solve a UI problem by introducing more logic that ultimately needs manual management by the end user. Displaying year/month folders is fundamentally a UI problem and should be treated as such.

I'll make an assumption, and if it holds true, then we don't need nested folders, just better sorting/UI features: There is no nested folder structure anyone uses with more than two levels that relies on context beyond date, time, people, place, file format, device used for capturing, or other popular EXIF data. Most "folders" in photo organization are actually metadata in disguise. These are attributes, not containers. However, we might want to use hard-to-parse, detect, or tag attributes as containers (spaces/albums) like event type (barbecue) or broader context (Private/Work), but two levels would be sufficient for that.

Imagine a configurable view system where users arrange metadata layers to create their preferred hierarchy. In the settings, you'd have metadata cards you can toggle and reorder vertically: the top card becomes your first organizational level, the second card your second level, and so on.

Example configuration:
[Space: Personal] → [Year metadata] → [People metadata: Family] → [Albums]

This dynamically generates paths like:

• Personal/2025/Family/Barbecue 4th of July
• Personal/2025/Neighbors/Barbecue 4th of July

Notice the same album appears in multiple locations based on who's in the photos, essentially automatic symlinks, something most users wouldn't manually maintain in a traditional folder setup due to the complexity. Importantly, this dynamically generated structure could be synced back to your local file system, maintaining a 1:1 mapping between Ente and your device storage. You'd get the nested folder structure you want, but generated intelligently rather than maintained manually.

For professional work:
Work/2025/September/Client Jeremy/RAW/Marriage Photoshoot

Here, "Work" is the space and "Marriage Photoshoot" is the album. Everything between (the year, month, client name, file type) is dynamically generated from metadata, not manually created folders.

Here's the practical issue: if we implement unlimited nested folders today, within a week someone will open a feature request saying "I want my phone to automatically upload photos to Work/2025/December/ based on the current date" or "Please auto-file my RAW files into Client/ProjectName/RAW/ folders." Then we're building automatic folder creation based on metadata anyway. So why not skip the manual folder management entirely and build the smart system from the start?

If we choose to implement both manual nested folders and smart metadata-based organization, we'll end up maintaining two parallel systems that accomplish the same thing, significant overhead for limited benefit. Smart metadata-based organization is where the industry is heading; if Ente doesn't build it, competitors will, and users will migrate to whoever offers the most intelligent photo management. Development resources spent on traditional nested folders are resources not spent on the AI-powered features that will define photo management in the next few years.

Anyone skilled enough to maintain a large photo collection with many nested folders would also know how to automatically add metadata from the folders to the pictures. (If only the year is known, set it to January 1st at 00:00:00, making it clear it's a placeholder timestamp.) These power users are exactly the ones who would benefit most from smart organization features rather than continuing manual workflows that will inevitably become obsolete.

It's crucial to distinguish between UI challenges and architectural decisions. Smart nesting, sorting, and filtering features would benefit both user groups (those who want automatic organization and those who prefer manual control) while traditional nested folders would primarily serve users willing to do manual organization work. Ultimately, both approaches converge on the same functionality, but one requires constant manual maintenance while the other leverages automation from the start. The question isn't whether we need organization (we absolutely do) but whether that organization should be static and manual or dynamic and intelligent.

I'm genuinely curious: does anyone here currently use a folder structure with more than two meaningful levels that aren't just metadata in disguise? If you have folders three or more levels deep where the categories couldn't be expressed as date, location, people, file type, or other extractable attributes, I'd like to hear about it. I suspect these are absolute edge cases, but I'm open to being wrong.

[Innovato-uk]

I'm all for making process as dynamic as possible to make managing/search as easy as possible.
I'm looking at 3 scenarios.

1. A sports club that currently uses Smug Mug, with a link embedded in website for members to view/browse/download. Members can provide pics to the admin who uploads to SmugMug. Some meta data may have been removed from images by supplier but admin would upload to a folder for that 'event'. there are currently 3 layers. 1st is by year. then under that is by event then under that maybe more folders e.g. DAY1, 2 ,3 etc.... a quick check of some files in the albums show some have no info, some have location and some may have e.g.: Author | Picasa, software: Google, name, file size, etc
   The club concerned is sailing club, it would be amazing if ML/AI was able to recognise boat types, peoples faces etc etc ;)

2. my personal / family albums. I'd thought about using folders for Year, event, people e.g. 3 levels. At some stage I'm going to digitise over 30 years of photos, and since only meta data would be scan date and scan locations I'd have to manually manage at time of input by batches...a long over due job. Wondering whether to use Photomyne or hire an Epson fastfoto ff-680w photo scanner....

3. My work albums: i need folders for L1 Products/projects, customers, suppliers, years/dates. I may want to share some 'albums' via website or email links etc.

I look forward to seeing how /what can be implemented.

[maciekberry]

Hey @ArminShupuk and thanks for your constructive comment.

Two topics:

1. Yes, very often, the structure of the files is the metadata in disguise. Except ... when it is not.

Classic example: I have a multi day event, and photos from myself several friends. What's more, some of the photos are special (like "kids portraits"). And the event did not happen in the same place. I could have such a structure:

• 2024 -> 12 -> Cycling trip with Stuttons -> Maciek Photos
• 2024 -> 12 -> Cycling trip with Stuttons -> John Photos
• 2024 -> 12 -> Cycling trip with Stuttons -> John Photos -> Don't show to kids
• 2024 -> 12 -> Cycling trip with Stuttons -> Nathalie Photos
• 2024 -> 12 -> Cycling trip with Stuttons -> Nathalie Photos -> Best of
• 2024 -> 12 -> Cycling trip with Stuttons -> Nathalie Photos -> RAW for printing
• 2024 -> 12 -> Cycling trip with Stuttons -> Kids portraits

As you see I am mixing things that could be automatic (like containerisation of the event in year/month) and things that make sense only in this situation. The final structure is absolutely custom and no AI in the world will be able to automatically create it. I could of course use custom EXIF metadata or other tags, and it would certainly be more powerful, but this would need an enormous investment in the user friendly software.

2. That brings me to the second topic: even though we want to look forward, we cannot forget the present paradigm. And the present paradigm that you rarely organize files (just look at your computer desktop :) )but if you need to do it, you organize them in folders. This just feels natural and in the software specifically not made for geeks, you cannot ignore that.

To sum it up: there are methods better than folders, I agree. In few years, perhaps they will take over. But in 2025, folders feel natural, can be powerful and their limitation is something that "average users" understand.

[codethief]

I came here to write this exact comment. Thank god I'm not the only one organizing my photos like this. :)

[maciekberry]

Good morning Ente team,

I have read with horror on your Discord that finally, the nested folders are not planned for now "nested albums is currently the highest voted feature request but is not something we're immediately working on"

This is bad. I trusted you and started to switch to Ente (and to pay) precisely because you promised you will work on it this year. I can very well understand that the feature may be slightly late, but such a statement is a serious blow for me.

I am nicely asking you to reconsider that. Of course losing my business is not the end of the world for you, but stilll... It would be a shame.

(I have also read that you plan to implement tags for now, instead. Perhaps some good communication about how the tags will fullfill the same need that folders would be helpful)

[TheAntemundane]

To further this point, several people in this thread said that the lack of this features is the only thing holding them back from using and even paying for this service, and I agree with such sentiment. I wonder how many people made the decision to not use it due to this that we'll never hear from.

[highschooldropout]

I'm un-subbing from this thread. There is a blatant disregard for user needs unlike anything I've ever seen before. Hopefully we've all found or will find solid alternatives. Just glad I stopped paying for the service almost a year ago now lol.

[gplr]

I‘m also unsubbing.
I found a - paid - alternative.

Very unfortunate.

[Phisoloc]

@gplr I would love to know your alternative. Please share it with us.

[Innovato-uk]

Lack of this feature is reason I won’t subscribe, had high hopes but seems will have to look elsewhere….
Anyone got suggestions…?

[Phisoloc]

Maybe this one: Zeitkapsl

But i am not sure if they do support subfolders. I haven't t tried it yet.

[Phisoloc]

I just got a response from Zeizkapsl.

Sad news: it is not implemented yet
Good news: It is under active development

Here they replied within minutes.

[mxmehl]

Thanks for pointing to Zeitkapsl! Once they have the subfolders feature and proper face recognition (which is also high on their roadmap), I will probably migrate my ~300G of photos because I am really annoyed by the bad communication and response to user feedback in this matter.

Zeitkapsl even has a guide for migration.

[Phisoloc]

I've got an update to subfolders at Zeitlapsl

[Phisoloc]

Sorry to say that. But i am really annoyed how this ente is not responding to this major issue.

We already explained why we would love to see this feature implemented. But until now there is no communication or any roadmap to implement this nor why this is not possible.

As a premium user, already got 100k+ files and 500 GB of data on ente, i would like to see this this feature being recognized by ente. My subscription is still active till July. But I am already overthinking my subscription because my album is a mess already.

Screenshots here, photos there, several different devices, documents somewhere in between. This is too much to handle if there is no subfolder management.

[vishnukvmd]

Hey everyone.

Some of our engineers dedicated a month between September - October building nested albums, and came to the conclusion to pull it off with the finesse we would like, it will take us more than a quarter. Unfortunately, the infrastructure overhaul that is required is non-trivial.

We understand this is important to many of you, but as an organization we are not at a point where we can afford to commit to this. We will add support for tags (#543) that will solve some of the use cases for nesting and sharing, but it will not cover all expectations discussed here.

We do not wish to leave you hanging, so I will mark this feature as unplanned until we have more engineering bandwidth.

Sorry for the disappointment.

[codethief]

While I am disappointed that this feature won't become available for another while, as a fellow software engineer I understand the conundrum. I know it's not much but I just upgraded my plan – hopefully you'll be able to get more engineering bandwidth soon!

to pull it off with the finesse we would like, it will take us more than a quarter

Out of pure interest, could you elaborate on what the main blockers are? Maybe not everything needs to be ready at once?

[TobiasAT]

This is genuinely sad. This feature request is the most upvoted of all time, and for good reason.

1. Tags clearly do not solve the problem. Google (and even Proton) tried the same approach with Gmail / ProtonMail in its early days, no folders, only tags / labels. Over time, both introduced labels and sub-labels that effectively behave like folders, because labels alone did not work for users in practice. Proton now offers labels and folders.
2. Working without sub-albums quickly becomes chaotic, especially in large libraries. I am running into the same issue myself.
3. I am familiar with your description of the security architecture. This architecture explains why sub-albums are challenging to implement. Every album or folder is a collection, but a collection cannot host another collection.

I really appreciate your efforts with Ente and E2EE, but from a user perspective, this looks like an early design decision that now blocks a highly requested feature.
I understand that architectural decisions like this are hard to change later. Still, this is one of those cases where the investment is unavoidable if you want to deliver one of the most requested features; otherwise, competitors are not far away.

[PackElend]

Hey there,
I have been following this discussion for months, as switching to Entourage is a deal-breaker for me.
For AI tools, etc. , I can wait and grow alongside ente.

I may share my two thoughts,

1. Can you preserve the path of the photo when importing and exporting to the same location? To me, without much knowledge about the codebase, iit does not sound like rocket science.
   The majority of people have grown up with a folder structure. It is challenging to change such habit. I guess the many other examples how habits make it difficult to adapt. You would allow users to leave the ente how the started with it, with the folder structure as designed. So, there's no need to worry about being locked in or having to build up the folder structure from scratch.

2. Since ente is open source, why not make the infrastructure overhaul an open project? This could be organised through a programme such as Google Summer of Code, or an open-source bounty could be requested to find an engineer to work on the project.