Even if, from a security perspective, it would be ideal to host it yourself - for most companies it's simply economically impractical.ī) Granted that you accept the risk of your vendor recording your communications, the odds of those communications being recorded are much, much lower for voice communications than they are for text communications, for the sheer cost of storing voice and video data. The IT workload to run all of the above is extremely high, prohibitively so for startups and small companies. For what it's worth, such a security stance also requires you to run your own email servers. You run the risk that the vendor is recording what you do on the other end of that connection. For example, being able to run a public Discord instance for customer support, with individual rooms per customer, and customer screen sharing and get anybody in the company to leave their team office on the private instance and join the support call in two clicks is mind-blowing.Ī) If you're willing to accept using a SaaS for corporate communications, then Discord is no different than Slack. They're leaving huge sums of money on the table. I appreciate that Discord is gamer-focused branding, but their inability to launch more or less the same product under a professional brand is astounding. We'd probably be willing to pay four or five times as much, especially if it would allow us to host video/screen-shares with more people. It's so underpriced for the corporate usecase, it's practically criminal. We only pay $75/month, for two levels of server boosting. The persistent voice channel is the absolutely crucial benefit above and beyond the 'click-to-start-a-call' UX on other platforms. We use Discord in a professional context as a kind of virtual office, with voice channels set up for team offices and meeting rooms.

Teamspeak 5 news