I built an AI meeting tool for people who hate writing meeting notes
A while ago, my wife asked me if I knew a simple tool that could record meetings and help the notes afterward.
I looked around.
Then I did the very developer thing:
I started building one myself.
That became AegisMeetings.
The idea is pretty simple:
Record a meeting or upload an audio file, and it turns it into:
a transcript
a summary
key points
action items
It currently supports English, Traditional Chinese, Japanese, Korean, and Cantonese.
But while building it, I ran into a question that ended up changing the whole product:
What actually happens to your meeting data after you upload it to an AI service?
Meetings can contain customer information, internal discussions, contracts, roadmap decisions, or things you simply don’t want sitting around on someone else’s server.
So I ended up spending way more time on privacy and data handling than I originally expected.
For example, I designed AegisMeetings so that stored meeting data is encrypted, and I try to keep the period where plaintext is needed for AI processing as limited as possible.
I also deliberately don’t market it as “100% secure” or “true E2EE,” because AI still needs access to the content during processing.
I’d rather explain the limitation than make a prettier claim.
Pricing starts at $9.99/month, with no annual commitment.
I’m still figuring out where AegisMeetings fits best — individuals, freelancers, small teams, consultants, researchers, etc.
So I’m curious:
For those of you who already use AI meeting tools, what made you choose the one you use today?
Was it accuracy, price, integrations, privacy, or something else?
And if you want to take a look:
AegisMeetings:
https://aegismeetings.com/
Being upfront that this isn't true E2EE is a strength. I'd make data retention a product setting, not just policy language. Let users choose to delete data right after the summary, after 24 hours, or on a schedule they set. Show them a clear receipt when deletion happens. People may not understand encryption details, but they do understand how long a customer call stays on your servers.
The honest privacy framing is smart. But I'd go further: the real question isn't "which feature do people care about most?" It's "which specific friction point made someone search for a tool in the first place?"
You already have data for this - every person who signs up found you because they hit a moment where the status quo broke. Someone was mid-meeting realizing they'd spend 30 minutes writing notes. Someone's team lost institutional knowledge because nobody documented decisions. Someone realized their meeting data was sitting on Zoom's servers unencrypted.
The insight isn't "privacy matters." It's "privacy matters TO THE PERSON WHO WAS ALREADY WORRIED ABOUT IT." That person will pay. Everyone else will use whatever was free first.
If you tag each signup with what drove them (privacy threat, note-writing friction, integration gap, team coordination breakdown), you'll see which friction point has the highest LTV. Some meeting tools win on accuracy. Some win on integrations. The ones that win fastest win on solving the specific moment someone couldn't tolerate the old way anymore.
The challenge is you'll probably find it's not privacy for most people - it's the mechanical time-suck of writing notes. But once you know that, you can either build deeper into that friction, or price/position differently based on which friction point your users actually came from.
The privacy positioning feels more credible because you’re explicit about the limitation instead of claiming “100% secure.” I’d be curious whether privacy is actually the deciding factor for users, or whether accuracy and workflow fit still win once they compare tools.
I think that’s exactly the question I’m trying to answer.
My current assumption is that privacy alone probably won’t make someone switch if the transcription is bad or the workflow is annoying.
Accuracy, speed, and usability still have to be good enough first.
Where I hope privacy matters is when two tools are “good enough,” but one of them gives you more control over sensitive meeting data.
So I’m treating privacy more as a differentiator than an excuse to compromise on the core product.
I’m curious though — what usually makes you stick with a meeting tool after trying it?
That makes sense. I’d be interested in continuing the conversation by email if you’re open to it. What’s the best email to reach you on?
This comment was deleted 21 days ago