3 ms·
> It would be incredibly cost prohibitive to run servers with live transcoding at their scale with a widely used free tier. From the article, it looks like vid
by mcintyre1994 6y ago
> It would be incredibly cost prohibitive to run servers with live transcoding at their scale with a widely used free tier.
From the article, it looks like video watermark is only available for a meeting with only signed in users and locked to a particular domain. I don't know their pricing model, but speculating - I wonder if those features mean it's only available on some sort of premium tier and they could live encode only those meetings?
- ridaj 6y agoThere are more reasons than just cost to do just for signed in users on a given domain. - Privacy (expected for consumers, debatable for domains). - Willingness to pay (if your stuff is worth protecting, might as well charge for it). - Decoding the watermarks: I assume this is only done on demand by authenticated users at a very low rate (otherwise if it's freely available to anyone, you give leakers an oracle that lets them determine whether their media scrubbing / fuzzing has indeed removed the watermarks, and these systems are more effective when they have no way to check / must live in fear that they haven't scrubbed it right)