The screenshot does show slightly higher CPU. We wanted to remain honest in that way. Strictly speaking, CPU usage is lower if you use Watercooler over having to open your browser to do a video call (if you add up all processes) and it's comparable to Zoom. Will work on maybe changing the phrasing on this. Thanks for the feedback!
Edit: Changed the copy to just "Watercooler uses less memory and than any other video conferencing app with comparable CPU."
While this might be interesting and relevant to the HN audience, I doubt that this is a differentiating factor for 99% of today’s video call users. And of the two, I’d argue processor would be more important than memory: high processor usage makes your lap hot and the fans kick in; whereas in today’s world of multi-GB memory as standard, 100 vs. 200 vs. 300 MB memory usage is effectively invisible.
But, I do think that users do notice the difference. I think you're right that they'll "feel" an application hogging their CPU more than they'll feel one doing so with memory, but they can tell when an application is faster/slower. I think this is especially true with video calling.
So the bet is not su much that you're open up Activity Monitor and track CPU or memory, but rather that you'll "feel" how the app does perform better. And yes, I could be totally wrong about it!
All that being said, Watercooler definitely has a long way to go when it comes to this. There's a bunch of stuff I plan to do in order to improve performance.
