because this thread existed before yours and it’s been deemed a “feature request” and not a “bug”.
i’ve been beating the wall about this for some time with it mostly falling on deaf ears.
my advice? use the native jellyin app on mobile devices (it’s more than adequate). i only use Infuse on tvOS and use Jellyfin app on iOS/iPadOS for the remote bandwidth features.
The title of this thread is not the same thing. I don’t want to support the remote bandwidth features, I simply want the bug fixed where the incorrect API is being used.
Jellyfin app doesn’t support Atmos.
it’s the same, as the remote bandwidth isn’t working also because the wrong API is being used.
Can you change the title to reflect that the incorrect API is being used to prevent the confusion the devs had above that this is a request for transcoding?
the title was already changed by the mods here from what it was originally.
however, i wouldn’t hold any breath on seeing anything happen about this. seems there is no interest to resolve there jellyfin issues.
As far as I understand, Infuse supports playback of many different video and audio formats, and many of those being behind the paywall - meaning the source of income for Firecore team. That is for sure one way to do it, I have no problems with this. However, supporting remote transcoding would be somewhat like shooting yourself in the foot, right? I see this as the only possible reason to deliberately use “wrong” endpoint. And, if you think about it twice, then you understand it is not the wrong endpoint at all.
explain why you think that? as it’s non-sensical to me
i’ve thought it about 4 times and still don’t understand the point you’re trying to make.
jellyfin devs have confirmed the wrong end point is being used for playback.
If you got large library with whole bunch of different video formats, chance is that you won’t be able to play many of those without paying for Infuse Pro, one way or another.
However, if transcoding is available, Jellyfin would be sending all the videos in format supported by free Infuse, and then Firecore loses potential income.
That is how I see it. How else would you explain this pointless thread? How complicated is for devs to confirm the endpoint that was asked for numerous times here? I reckon it takes a minute, or two.
Infuse does not currently support transcoding or remote access limits. This is not something that was done with the intent to extract more revenue from users, but simply due to the fact that the integration method currently used is the simplest and most reliable.
I understand there are some who would like to see more advanced controls and/or transcoding options added to Infuse and these are things we may consider for a future update if there is enough interest.
If you are interested in seeing either of these things added to Infuse I would encourage you to ‘like’ the first post in the relevant suggestion thread to show your support. This is very helpful for us when it comes to determining which features to work on next. Thanks!
this is not what people are asking for though.
jellyfin server handles it based on whether the playback is local or remote.
Infuse, in direct mode, is reporting that playback is local all the time, even when it’s remote.
this is the issue, and jellyfin dev advise it’s because you are using the wrong API/
again, we are not asking for infuse the support transcoding within the app itself, we are simply asking for infuse to use the correc API so that the server can see if playback is remote, and the server itself applies the bitrate limit at server-side.
you have totally gone down the wrong road, and you’ve totally misunderstood the thread topic.
this has nothing to do with infuse pro or loss of income.