Show HN: VidStudio, a browser based video editor that doesn't upload your files

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Licensing & FFmpeg Use

  • A major thread centers on FFmpeg’s LGPL/GPL licensing in a closed-source, browser-delivered app.
  • Concerns: current deployment likely misses FFmpeg’s “License Compliance Checklist” (no clear source links, unclear way to replace the FFmpeg build, single opaque WASM blob).
  • Clarifications:
    • LGPL allows closed source but requires clear separation and the ability for users to relink or replace the library.
    • This is conceptually hard with WebAssembly; suggestions include multiple WASM modules, separate “adapter” layer, or letting users supply their own FFmpeg binaries.
  • Some note that using server-side FFmpeg could sidestep these constraints, but at the cost of privacy and more lock‑in.
  • There’s discussion of how tricky LGPL is on platforms like iOS App Store.

Architecture & Performance

  • The editor reportedly uses WebCodecs + Pixi.js for editing and FFmpeg-wasm only for final export or other tools; ffmpeg-wasm is described as much slower and memory‑limited, especially for long videos.
  • One user reports processing 3+ hours of media successfully; others warn that long videos and mobile memory limits remain problematic.
  • Seeking implementation is criticized for reinitializing VideoDecoder per seek, causing poor performance; this may stem from limitations in the demuxing library (e.g., mp4box.js).

Browser Codec & Compatibility Issues

  • Several users cannot import common formats: HEVC/hvc1 from phones, 10‑bit video, and certain WebM files.
  • Root cause is often WebCodecs/browser gaps (especially on Firefox), not FFmpeg itself.
  • Suggestions include better error messaging (e.g., nudging users toward Chrome when Firefox cannot decode).
  • Question raised, but not answered, about whether h264 patent fees apply to such a project.

UX, Features & Use Cases

  • Praise: very fast, transparent persistence, impressive for pure in‑browser editing; liked auxiliary local tools (compress/convert, Discord presets).
  • Criticism:
    • Track manipulation is limited (no reordering tracks, hard to move clips between tracks).
    • Transform tools exist but are hard to discover.
    • Some exports (e.g., 1080→1920 TikTok) stall partway.
  • Feature requests: automatic subtitles/transcripts, better handling of mixed aspect ratios, media-library workflows over network shares.
  • Pricing is currently “free”.

Privacy vs Cloud Convenience

  • Strong appreciation for “no uploads, no account, fully local” as a differentiator versus SaaS editors.
  • Others argue many users actively want cloud workflows (sharing links, collaborative review, device sync).
  • Some lament that privacy has become a “feature” rather than the default.

Open Source, Commercialization & Ecosystem

  • Some encourage open‑sourcing (possibly AGPL) both for compliance clarity and community contribution; others defend keeping the UI logic closed for commercialization or to avoid clones.
  • It’s emphasized that FFmpeg’s licenses explicitly allow commercialization if terms are followed.
  • The broader ecosystem of browser‑based video editors is noted as becoming crowded/commoditized, akin to image and PDF tools.