Skip to content

Video Chat Stack Options

Jump to bottom
Arvind Kasiliya edited this page Dec 15, 2023 · 16 revisions

Introduction

Being a telehealth app, our senior design project needs to facilitate a video conversation between a doctor and their patients. Therefore, we looked at different technologies to add video chat functionality to our app. Below, we describe each framework and highlight their key features, advantages, and disadvantages. Although options such as WebRTC and WebSockets would've given us the most flexibility and been most conducive to learning how these technologies, we decided to go with Agora.io because of its simplicity and generous free tier limits.

Options

1. WebRTC over WebSockets

  • Description: WebRTC (Web Real-Time Communication) is an open-source project that provides web browsers and mobile applications with real-time communication via simple APIs. It supports video, voice, and generic data to be sent between peers, allowing developers to build powerful voice- and video-communication solutions. WebSocket is a protocol that provides a full communication channel over a single, persistent connection between a client and the server. The low-latency and persistent communication of WebSockets make it suitable to set up a video chat program. Combining the two requires you to use WebRTC on the clients and creating a WebSocket server that establishes the video link between the host and recipient.
  • Pros:
    • Optimized Real-Time Communication: WebRTC is specifically designed for real-time media applications, providing high-quality video and audio streaming. This ensures an excellent user experience in video chat applications.
    • Low Latency: WebSockets offer a persistent, low-latency connection that is ideal for sending real-time control messages, chat, or updates during a video call, enhancing the interactivity of the application.
    • Scalability: Using WebSockets for non-media related data (like text chat, file sharing, or control signals) offloads some tasks from the WebRTC layer, potentially improving scalability and performance of the video chat service.
    • Compatibility: Both technologies works in most modern browsers without external dependencies.
  • Cons:
    • Complexity in Implementation: Integrating WebRTC with WebSockets adds complexity to the development process. We need to handle two different technologies, each with its own set of APIs and quirks.
    • Handling Disconnections: Both WebRTC and WebSockets require robust handling of network disconnections and reconnections, which can add to the development complexity.
    • Security Considerations: Both technologies require careful attention to security. WebSockets need secure handling to prevent attacks like message interception or spoofing.

2. Twilio

  • Description: Founded in 2008, Twilio is a cloud communications platform that provides a suite of APIs and services for developers to build complex communication systems, including video chat applications. Twilio's Video API, developers can create customized video chat experiences with features like one-to-one, group calling, and screen sharing. The API supports WebRTC and handles intricate aspects like signaling, network traversal, and media optimization. This means developers can focus on building unique features and user interfaces without worrying about the underlying complexities of real-time video communication.
  • Pros:
    • Ease of Use and Integration: Twilio provides comprehensive APIs and SDKs for various programming languages, making it relatively straightforward to integrate video chat features into applications.
    • Advanced Features: Twilio supports advanced video chat functionalities such as screen sharing, group calls, and recording, allowing for the creation of feature-rich applications.
    • Global Reach and Reliability: With a strong global presence, Twilio offers reliable connectivity and high-quality video streaming across different geographical locations, which is crucial if we would like to have our application run reliably anywhere in the country.
  • Cons:
    • Cost Concerns: Twilio operates on a pay-as-you-go pricing model, which can become costly depending on the app’s usage patterns and the number of users. The free tier for Twilio is also rather limited, and may not suffice outside of our development testing.
    • Potential for Vendor Lock-in: Integrating deeply with Twilio’s services might lead to vendor lock-in, making it challenging to switch providers in the future without significant redevelopment.
    • Inconsistent User Experience Across Devices: Twilio's performance can vary depending on the end user's device capabilities and operating system. Twilio's Video Chat SDK, which is resource-intensive, might not perform optimally on older or less powerful devices.

3. Agora.io

  • Description: Founded in 2014, Agora.io provides a platform for real-time communication that focuses on delivering high-quality, low-latency video and voice calls. Agora's technology is based on a proprietary real-time communication (RTC) network, which ensures reliable and scalable performance across global locations. Additionally, Agora.io includes features like adaptive bitrate streaming, automatic noise cancellation, and echo reduction, enhancing the overall user experience in video chats.
  • Pros:
    • Ultra-Low Latency: Agora specializes in ultra-low latency streaming, which is crucial for our telehealth program: we do not want doctors or patients missing anything that the other might say.
    • Strong Network Optimization: Agora's intelligent network optimization ensures stable performance even in varying network conditions, which is vital for maintaining call quality.
    • Advanced Features: Like Twilio, Agora supports advanced video chat functionalities such as screen sharing, echo reduction, group callls, which can improve the telehealth experience.
    • Generous Free Tier: Agora provides a very generous free tier where the first 10,000 minutes of video chat are free per month. This is more than sufficient for us in order to test and demonstrate.
  • Cons:
    • Dependence on External Service: Relying on Agora’s infrastructure means dependence on their service for critical application functionality, which can pose risks in terms of service stability and data privacy.
    • Potential Data Compliance Issues: Depending on Cigna's data collection policy, it may be problematic that Agora retains a lot of the video chat, even if we are not using the recording functionality.

4. Daily.co

  • Description: Daily.co is a video and audio call API that's focused on ease of integration, offering both pre-built UI components and low-level APIs for custom solutions. Emerging as a player in the RTC (Real-Time Communication) field, Daily.co has gained recognition for its simplicity and user-friendly API.
  • Pros:
    • Very easy to integrate, especially for quick deployments.
    • Offers both pre-built components and the ability for customization.
    • Good support and documentation.
  • Cons:
    • Might offer less control for highly customized solutions.
    • Dependency on a third-party service.
    • Pricing may be a concern for large-scale applications.

Conclusion

Clone this wiki locally