Direct File Access - Exoplayer

[Teddyknuddel 144]

@vdatanet
That's actually a much better way of putting it, and I mostly agree with you.

You're right that “the server isn't in the media path” is, by itself, an architectural difference rather than automatically an advantage. Whether it becomes an advantage depends on the setup.

But you've also just listed several concrete situations where it does become an advantage: avoiding an unnecessary network hop, players whose native file access behaves better, and media structures that benefit from real file access.

And that's really all I've been arguing. I never claimed that SMB universally beats HTTP, nor that it somehow produces better picture or sound from identical data.

In my particular setup, everything is local, the player and storage are on the same network, Kodi has excellent native SMB support, and I neither need nor want the server to mediate media delivery. So Direct File Access is the architecture that suits that setup better.

For a browser, Chromecast, remote client or a client that may require remuxing/transcoding, HTTP obviously has major advantages. I wouldn't suggest otherwise.

So yes: two architectures, different trade-offs, and which one is preferable depends on the setup.

Which brings us to the slightly ironic conclusion that Direct File Access does indeed have concrete benefits — just not for everybody.

And that was my point all along.

[ebr 16681]

7 hours ago, Teddyknuddel said:

After all these discussions, have we now reached the point where the strategy is simply to sit this out in silence and hope that the thread starter eventually “forgets” about it?

From my perspective there is nothing left to discuss at this point in time.  There is not enough benefit in this feature to warrant further development at this time.

[Teddyknuddel 144]

@ebr
And this is exactly where we disagree.

You say there is “not enough benefit” to warrant further development. But that isn't an objective technical conclusion — it's your assessment of how much those benefits are worth relative to the number of users who would use them.

@vdatanet has just described several situations himself where Direct File Access can provide an actual advantage. So I think we've moved beyond the question of whether benefits exist at all. They clearly can.

The remaining question is how much value Emby assigns to those benefits and to the users who want them.

And that's the part I don't agree with.

Direct File Access existed, it worked, and I used it successfully myself. It wasn't abandoned because it was technically useless or because HTTP made it functionally impossible. Android changed, maintaining the feature became less attractive, and Emby decided that the number of users benefiting from it didn't justify the effort.

That's your development decision to make. But I'm equally entitled to challenge the reasoning behind that decision — especially as a user who actually used the feature and found it valuable enough to downgrade an entire Shield just to retain it.

So no, from my perspective there is still something to discuss. Saying “there is not enough benefit” doesn't settle the question; it simply states Emby's current position on it.

And positions can be reconsidered.

[yocker 1876]

@Teddyknuddel



Is this what you are looking for?

[ebr 16681]

1 hour ago, Teddyknuddel said:

And positions can be reconsidered.

We are not currently reconsidering this position.

1 hour ago, yocker said:

Is this what you are looking for?

He's well aware of that field.  The issue is our Android apps do not currently use it due to the reasons I laid out.  Our Windows (and possibly Linux, I'm not positive on that) apps will use that.

[yocker 1876]

7 minutes ago, ebr said:

He's well aware of that field.  The issue is our Android apps do not currently use it due to the reasons I laid out.  Our Windows (and possibly Linux, I'm not positive on that) apps will use that.

I was asking because i wanted to be sure of the conversation.
Must admit i have gotten a little curious about the smb thing.

[Teddyknuddel 144]

@ebrYes, I know you're not reconsidering it. That's precisely the problem I'm criticizing.

The functionality is already part of Emby's server architecture. The “Shared network folder” field exists specifically so that Emby clients can access media files directly. As you've just confirmed, the Windows client uses it, while the Android clients don't.

So we're not discussing some exotic concept that doesn't belong in Emby. We're discussing an Emby feature that already exists, was previously usable on Android TV as well, and is still used by other Emby clients.

The Android implementation stopped being maintained after Android/Shield changes because you decided that too few users benefited from it.

I understand that decision. I simply don't agree with it.

And “we are not currently reconsidering it” doesn't really address any of the arguments made here for reconsidering it. It only confirms that you currently don't intend to. Which is evidence of a lack of professionalism.

Which, incidentally, brings us right back to why I originally described Direct File Access as being “rejected”.

@yocker
Ironically, it was precisely this setting on the server that made Direct File Access possible in the first place. Not just on Kodi, Linux and Windows… no, on Android as well.

[ebr 16681]

4 minutes ago, Teddyknuddel said:

So we're not discussing some exotic concept that doesn't belong in Emby

Actually, it is pretty much a legacy concept.  It is there from the very early days when it was necessary for mounting ISOs and such. It was put in to support "Emby Classic" which ran in WMC.  That is no longer today's world.

4 minutes ago, Teddyknuddel said:

I understand that decision. I simply don't agree with it

That is your prerogative and I'm sorry this is such an issue for you but we have a very long list of other items to work on that will provide very clear benefits to a much larger segment of our user base.  That is where our energy is going to stay for the time being.

[Teddyknuddel 144]

@ebr
Let me remind you about the DTS HD High Resolution issue – you kept putting that off back then, until I got absolutely livid after three months. Or what ever happened to the person who, from one day to the next, could no longer record TV programmes? I don’t know what became of it – but I reckon, after two years, it still hadn’t been sorted out. So much for all the effort you’re putting in.

I’m more inclined to think this is just defiance on your part.

[Teddyknuddel 144]

On 9/4/2026 at 11:00 PM, Luke said:

Hi, I think you mean SMB support? I would not say that it's being rejected.

You originally said you wouldn't describe Direct File Access as being “rejected”.

Eric has now made Emby's position quite clear: the feature isn't considered beneficial enough to warrant further development, and that position is currently not being reconsidered.

So I'm genuinely interested in your view now: would you still say that “rejected” is the wrong description?

[Luke 43047]

Nothing is ever completely off the table unless it's just outside of our primary goals.

For example if we were to start seeing an influx of users interested in bluray folders and iso's, then perhaps we would invest more resources into them.  The same goes for any other feature. 

So yes we see your request and acknowledge it and are keeping an eye on it. Right now our developer time and energy is being spent on things that are wanted by larger numbers of users.