zlacker

[return to "Privacy is priceless, but Signal is expensive"]
1. V__+r8[view] [source] 2023-11-16 16:53:45
>>mikece+(OP)
Signal had 40 million active users in 2021 [1]. With 14 million in infra cost, that comes to .35 per user/year. Total expenses are about 33 million, so about .825 per user/year. All in all that seems very reasonable.

[1] https://www.businessofapps.com/data/signal-statistics/

◧◩
2. lepton+ug[view] [source] 2023-11-16 17:23:06
>>V__+r8
I'd be happy to pay $1/year for signal, and I'd pay $2/year if it were decoupled from my phone number.
◧◩◪
3. lxgr+in[view] [source] 2023-11-16 17:50:16
>>lepton+ug
If you pay Signal $1/year, they'll realistically see about 60-70 cents of that – and that's only considering payment processor fees.

Now add the cost of providing support (it's a paid product now!), payment handling on their end (in a privacy-preserving way, which excludes most common payment methods), and top it off with the immense damage to the network effect by excluding all the users that can't or simply don't want to pay $1/year...

Donations seem like the much better option here.

◧◩◪◨
4. eviks+8s[view] [source] 2023-11-16 18:10:40
>>lxgr+in
You can also charge for a 10 year minimum and get to a higher retained %

You don't need to provide support, even much more expensive consumer services live without a proper one, so being explicit about the fact that you only pay for infrastructure could suffice

Not sure why payment privacy has to be so strict for everyone

The network effect damage is real, but maybe it could be limited with donations :)

◧◩◪◨⬒
5. lxgr+6t[view] [source] 2023-11-16 18:14:53
>>eviks+8s
Selling a service automatically opts you in to all kinds of consumer protections, either legally or de facto through the dispute mechanism of the payment methods your customers use.

Just ignoring customer complaints and selling the service "as-is" is usually not an option.

[go to top]