11–20 of 75 posts
I completely agree. In this ideal situation, who pays for it? The article seems to have left this small detail out. How do you plan on getting this service to work without someone footing the bill?
This raises the obvious question, then who is going to pay for them?
Who pays for e-mail?
This raises the obvious question, then who is going to pay for them?
Who pays for e-mail?
This is the question of a zen master. In four words you've said more than the entire hagiography of TFA. Yes of course, someone has to pay for electricity, but when using an open protocol the user chooses who pays and what they're paying for. If Facebook could go back in time and kill email, they would in a heartbeat. The communications of free people should not be supervised, whether by dictators or by capitalists.
In that regard I think the title is misleading: Durov plans to make money through the app eventually, just not through selling people's information or push advertising.
This read like an ad for Telegram.
This read like an ad for Telegram.
Yeah, but everything's true. Encrypted by default, huge bounty for security researches, fast, great cross platform apps.
Use Signal/Textsecure, folks.
I think the key thing here is that Durov has the money from selling stock in his previous company (12% w/valuation of 3-4 billion) which means he can afford to pay to support the app in the meantime without any external financial help. I do think there are different ways to monetize messaging outside of pushing advertisements into people's face or selling information and third-party paid apps are a good option. In th…