31–40 of 226 posts
I'd argue that $5/month is quite high. Not because Signal isn't useful, but because the actual incurred cost per user is much, much lower. Of course, not everyone is going to pay. But if Signal were to ask users to pay, say $10 per year , i'm sure there'd be a lot more payers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Firstly, Random websites tell me that each Facebook user is worth on average ~$35/year on revenue figures--no indication if that was net or gross. So, ~$5/month gross costs is appropriate when comparing it to deferred "you are the product" and taking into account cryptographers, developers, testers, system administrators, infrastructure administrators, team leads, program leads, and adding in physical infrastructure…
Are you really comparing the feature set of facebook to that of signal? Or what a user is worth to a business vs. what the business spends on the user? Or what journalists report vs. reality?
Is there a market for a secure messaging app (similar to Signal) that does not rely on personally identifying information (phone numbers and emails) or is that too fringe?
Now that I'd happily pay for.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
These are not requirements for most messaging app users. I just want secure messaging. I don’t care if it’s open or interoperable. WhatsApp if it was run by a non profit.
Most messaging app users don't really care about encryption either. Most (or at least a large minority) probably wouldn't mind if their messages were used to 'deliver ads more suitable for you'. It doesn't mean these aren't important issues. Until Signal drops the phone number requirement (nothing beats that for efficient user tracking), allows desktop use without requiring a smartphone anywhere in the process, open…
I could handle the closed server for enabling me to use IM to talk to people. But these two points are what make it a non-starter for me.
I'd argue that $5/month is quite high. Not because Signal isn't useful, but because the actual incurred cost per user is much, much lower. Of course, not everyone is going to pay. But if Signal were to ask users to pay, say $10 per year , i'm sure there'd be a lot more payers.
I'm in a third world country and even I would contribute $10 a year. I already contribute to Wikipedia on occasion. Making it monthly feels like too much of an obligation.
I'd argue that $5/month is quite high. Not because Signal isn't useful, but because the actual incurred cost per user is much, much lower. Of course, not everyone is going to pay. But if Signal were to ask users to pay, say $10 per year , i'm sure there'd be a lot more payers.
Also I’ve recently been back on the App Store for the first time in a long while. WHAT IS GOING ON?! The gall for simple, offline only apps like a little piano keyboard to want monthly fees for continued use. There isn’t even an illusion of continued feature adds or some recurring service.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm in a third world country and even I would contribute $10 a year. I already contribute to Wikipedia on occasion. Making it monthly feels like too much of an obligation.
Quoted post unavailable.