WhatsApp used to cost 99 cents per year https://www.siliconvalley.com/2016/01/18/whatsapp-drops-99-c... I can't remember ever paying.
Early adopters got life long free access... until eventually even the 99 cents was dropped.
Signal users can give a recurring monthly contribution
21–30 of 226 posts
Re: Signal users can give a recurring monthly contribution
#22I'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.
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 and network interconnections.
Otherwise you're just valuing against your own perception of "how much is my disposable income", which is different between any economic zone. And that's a poor argument when some people's concept of a steak dinner is a McLaren 720s that's disposable after a month.
Secondly, there are payment processor margins to take into account. At ~$60/year on 12 payments a pre-authorized standpoint, that may be less than on 1 payment of $10. I'm not interested enough to check.
Re: Signal users can give a recurring monthly contribution
#23Earlier 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.
That's why I simply use whatsapp.
Technically it is not very secure. It leaks the most interesting stuff (metadata). People think that only message content matters.
Re: Signal users can give a recurring monthly contribution
#24I'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.
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?
Re: Signal users can give a recurring monthly contribution
#25Is 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?
Re: Signal users can give a recurring monthly contribution
#26Reminder that Signal server source code is not fully released and the app is heavily dependent on google services to operate. Signal also takes measures against third party or unofficial apps. Whatever you say about privacy Signal is not an ally of user freedom.
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 sources their server code, and allows for third party clients in a reasonable way; I agree with dfkajglag: not yet an ally of user freedom.
Re: Signal users can give a recurring monthly contribution
#27WhatsApp used to cost 99 cents per year https://www.siliconvalley.com/2016/01/18/whatsapp-drops-99-c... I can't remember ever paying.
I've paid for it once, I can see the receipt in Google play
Re: Signal users can give a recurring monthly contribution
#28I'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.
Isn't signal deep in debt at the moment?
At least 100 millions?
Re: Signal users can give a recurring monthly contribution
#29I know I got to start learning to pay if I don't want to end up with another FB or GOOG in the future.
$5/month for a communication app, that is in essence a daily driver, is reasonable for most European/North America users.
Having said that, no-one in my circle uses Signal :/
Re: Signal users can give a recurring monthly contribution
#30I want nice things, so I’m going to donate. All those times when I’ve thought I would pay for service X if it meant not dealing with shitty dark pattern Y. Signal has kept their side of the deal, so now’s the time to pony up the dough. This and stack exchange would top the list of things I’m willing to pay for.
Has it? It kept source code outdated for a year while implementing support for an altcoin that their ex-CEO stands to profit from. All the while users were asking to implement stuff that's actually been requested for years. I like Signal as a product but my opinion of the company making it has soured pretty substantially.
For me, the service just works and I would get good value out of it at twice the cost. So it’s a good deal.