Live data from Hacker News

Messaging apps shouldn't make money – Pavel Durov and Telegram

wired.co.uk

31–40 of 75 posts

Re: Messaging apps shouldn't make money – Pavel Durov and Telegram

#31
> "We're trying to create a new type of IT company, one that never focuses on maximising profits, but instead provides value to society,"

This is dreadful. The Free software movement has existed for decades and Telegram brings nothing new to the table that Google hadn't already a decade ago (open yet crippled protocol, proprietary servers). There is nothing new here, besides the fact that Telegram basically makes no money. Which is also nothing new, since Google Talk and Voice never made money either!

I don't mind it, because we know the protocol and can reengineer the clients easily in the event they betray their users trust. It is much better than WhatsApp or Skype being a whole-pipe black box. But at the end of the day, XMPP has existed, has improved, and today provides all the features of all these other messaging transports and more, the problem is there is no money to be had in providing an easy signup XMPP service, so nobody advertises them. Which makes Telegram perplexing, because their only valuable resource is their userbase, and they are not directly monetizing it at all. Contrast that with Duckduckgo having an XMPP server @dukgo.com that basically got a blog post and hasn't been talked about much since, that I use all the time on all my devices.

But fundamentally none of this absolves how stupid all these companies re-implement a wheel poorly (XMPP) because the old wheel is so well known and understood that you can't lock people in or profit off the users using it.

Re: Messaging apps shouldn't make money – Pavel Durov and Telegram

#32
Either users will pay with their money or pay with their data (getting ads), else the model is not sustainable. Since, messaging using Internet is being considered here as basic necessity, one could argue that Messaging apps turns to be non-profit organizations or government supported organizations (but anonymous).

Re: Messaging apps shouldn't make money – Pavel Durov and Telegram

#33

This raises the obvious question, then who is going to pay for them?

Who pays for e-mail?

Google and every other company that invests the immense time and money required to keep it clear of spam. Email without a large spam filtering infrastructure is unusable.

Re: Messaging apps shouldn't make money – Pavel Durov and Telegram

#34

Either users will pay with their money or pay with their data (getting ads), else the model is not sustainable. Since, messaging using Internet is being considered here as basic necessity, one could argue that Messaging apps turns to be non-profit organizations or government supported organizations (but anonymous).

Costs are very low. If the owners don't want to maximize profit, the service can very well run like this for a very long time.

Re: Messaging apps shouldn't make money – Pavel Durov and Telegram

#35
Just the opposite. The free software movement has led to apps and programs where the users are the product, not the customer, and companies bend over backwards for advertisers. The companies have no incentive to care about your privacy, just your data.

Paid messaging apps, however (at least until they get acquired by advertising companies like Facebook), give companies incentives to service their customers first, and the users are actually the customers. That's why Slack and WhatsApp and HipChat and Basecamp have taken off--because they offer the security and paid customer/company relationship.

This article's title is woefully non-conclusive. Sure it would be wonderful if ALL messaging apps could by built and funded by Russian billionaires such they were private and free for the end user, but the fact is that to support the infrastructure of a billion+ user messaging app, you need to make money. And if you can't make money from the users to whom you are promising security and privacy (and thus to whom you owe allegiance), you have to make money elsewhere. And the alternative is arguably what has caused so many security and privacy problems in the first place.

Re: Messaging apps shouldn't make money – Pavel Durov and Telegram

#36
post #31

> "We're trying to create a new type of IT company, one that never focuses on maximising profits, but instead provides value to society," This is dreadful. The Free software movement has existed for decades and Telegram brings nothing new to the table that Google hadn't already a decade ago (open yet crippled protocol, proprietary servers). There is nothing new here, besides the fact that Telegram basically makes no…

[deleted]

Re: Messaging apps shouldn't make money – Pavel Durov and Telegram

#37
post #31

> "We're trying to create a new type of IT company, one that never focuses on maximising profits, but instead provides value to society," This is dreadful. The Free software movement has existed for decades and Telegram brings nothing new to the table that Google hadn't already a decade ago (open yet crippled protocol, proprietary servers). There is nothing new here, besides the fact that Telegram basically makes no…

XMPP have troubles with synchronizing chats between clients, with push notifications, with user-friendly mobile clients. I like XMPP, I did set up my own server, but I finally abandoned it. It's usable only with one client, preferably on desktop.

Re: Messaging apps shouldn't make money – Pavel Durov and Telegram

#38
post #31

> "We're trying to create a new type of IT company, one that never focuses on maximising profits, but instead provides value to society," This is dreadful. The Free software movement has existed for decades and Telegram brings nothing new to the table that Google hadn't already a decade ago (open yet crippled protocol, proprietary servers). There is nothing new here, besides the fact that Telegram basically makes no…

[deleted]

Re: Messaging apps shouldn't make money – Pavel Durov and Telegram

#39

Just the opposite. The free software movement has led to apps and programs where the users are the product, not the customer, and companies bend over backwards for advertisers. The companies have no incentive to care about your privacy, just your data. Paid messaging apps, however (at least until they get acquired by advertising companies like Facebook), give companies incentives to service their customers first, and…

It seems you missed this chunk of the article:

Will he continue to bankroll the business -- or does he see revenue opportunities? "We will become financially sustainable at some point," he says. "It will most likely involve third-party paid apps built on the Telegram platform."

Re: Messaging apps shouldn't make money – Pavel Durov and Telegram

#40

Either users will pay with their money or pay with their data (getting ads), else the model is not sustainable. Since, messaging using Internet is being considered here as basic necessity, one could argue that Messaging apps turns to be non-profit organizations or government supported organizations (but anonymous).

Costs are very low. If the owners don't want to maximize profit, the service can very well run like this for a very long time.

You are only considering the cost of infrastructure. What about the basic salary for the people working on the application and monitoring infrastructure, who will pay for that, if not users and not ads and not government?
Post reply on HN