[HN Gopher] OpenVidu: Open-source, multi-platform, WebRTC videoc... ___________________________________________________________________ OpenVidu: Open-source, multi-platform, WebRTC videoconferences Author : supdatecron Score : 40 points Date : 2020-03-17 16:59 UTC (6 hours ago) (HTM) web link (openvidu.io) (TXT) w3m dump (openvidu.io) | franga2000 wrote: | This looks perfect for a project I've been planning for a while, | but the way the pricing works seems dangerous to base a small | company on. They're pricing it per minute per core (even if | idle), as if it's a service - except that they're not providing | the service, I am. I'd much rather pay a flat fee than never know | how much I'll have to pay. | | If they want to charge for use, fine, charge ACTIVE time, not | UPtime. Running a single dual-core EC2 instance should be no | different than running a 10-core dedicated server at 20% load. | EGreg wrote: | The problem with all of these is that different browsers such as | firefox and safari have trouble with negotiating connections. | | For example we built the software we use on | https://intercoin.org/meeting or any website. It works across | safari on ios and chrome and we even made a workaround for | webviews: | | https://mobile.twitter.com/qbixapps/status/11564841564250398... | | But the sdp connections between the browsers fail and A can hear | B but C can't. Weird. | | Zoom or Google Hangouts doesn't have such issues because they | always assume one specific environment. Cross browser | videoconferencing is not easy | | But hey ours is open source and not locked into Twilio or these | guys: | | https://github.com/Qbix/Platform | | Search for the string WebRTC | SahAssar wrote: | The open-source variant does not support P2P sessions if I | understand it correctly, which is weird since that is half the | point of WebRTC. | AceJohnny2 wrote: | even for P2P, WebRTC most often still requires outside servers | for STUN/TURN, because everyone's behind a NAT of firewall. | SahAssar wrote: | IIRC most large scale deployments have it at around 75-95% of | traffic that only requires STUN (which is only used for the | handshake & holepunching, not for the actual traffic). TURN | is used for the remaining 25%-5%. | | STUN is cheap, easy and does not require a lot of traffic. | TURN on the other hand requires a lot of bandwidth, which can | be expensive. | memco wrote: | Yeah, I'm a little confused about this as well. It's also not | clear if the demos can be used as is. I would use this for an | ad-hoc meeting with friends if there's no restrictions. Given | that they don't mention it maybe that's fine? I'd be willing to | go through the steps to set this up on my own server, but why | do I need to if this site already provides everything I need? | giancarlostoro wrote: | It says "without a media node", when you hover over the info or | "i" icon next to P2P. | SahAssar wrote: | Yeah, which implies that the free version routes all media | over the server (a media node), hence it not being P2P. | | Not sure if you are agreeing with what I said or not? ___________________________________________________________________ (page generated 2020-03-17 23:00 UTC)