zlacker

[parent] [thread] 91 comments
1. V__+(OP)[view] [source] 2023-11-16 16:53:45
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/

replies(11): >>rogerk+p >>lepton+38 >>renewi+m9 >>2OEH8e+ic >>abdull+1d >>teeker+Xm >>lencas+0n >>gwd+6M >>Nemo_b+382 >>8n4vid+od2 >>goodpo+3h2
2. rogerk+p[view] [source] 2023-11-16 16:55:16
>>V__+(OP)
Based on App Store downloads on both platforms, they are well over 200M at this point.
replies(1): >>nvy+q8
3. lepton+38[view] [source] 2023-11-16 17:23:06
>>V__+(OP)
I'd be happy to pay $1/year for signal, and I'd pay $2/year if it were decoupled from my phone number.
replies(3): >>lxgr+Re >>caeril+0B >>XorNot+UR
◧◩
4. nvy+q8[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-16 17:24:48
>>rogerk+p
A lot of people, myself included, have it installed but never use it after they dropped SMS support.

Only a tiny fraction of my contacts use Signal, and most of those are also on Whatsapp, Telegram, Discord, and others.

Signal offers essentially nothing to me.

replies(4): >>rasso+Sj >>hiatus+jn >>hezral+RM >>HKH2+lZ1
5. renewi+m9[view] [source] 2023-11-16 17:27:47
>>V__+(OP)
I wonder how many people paid the $5 for WhatsApp back in the day. It gave you nothing but you were able to do it. I think I did.
replies(2): >>abdull+2c >>bilal4+Er
◧◩
6. abdull+2c[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-16 17:38:27
>>renewi+m9
Whatsapp was asking for $1/year [1]

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2016/jan/18/whatsapp-...

replies(2): >>lxgr+Yg >>renewi+5h
7. 2OEH8e+ic[view] [source] 2023-11-16 17:39:42
>>V__+(OP)
Definitely reasonable but the ultra privacy-conscious/paranoid can't easily donate or pay privately.
replies(4): >>groby_+Jj >>V__+fk >>godels+vk >>heavys+br
8. abdull+1d[view] [source] 2023-11-16 17:42:08
>>V__+(OP)
Mastodon org + Mastodon.social also have costs of 0.6 EUR/year, though they have two orders of magnitude less users [1]. This is really what most social media costs. These rates are even payable by many in poorer countries.

[1] >>38117385

replies(3): >>fmajid+hh >>jeroen+Fs >>andrep+uI3
◧◩
9. lxgr+Re[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-16 17:50:16
>>lepton+38
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.

replies(2): >>eviks+Hj >>lepton+zD
◧◩◪
10. lxgr+Yg[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-16 17:59:21
>>abdull+2c
I've been using WhatsApp when the nominal $1/year fee was still around, but somehow never ended up being actually charged, and I don't know anyone that did.

It's possible that they were only enforcing it in some regions, though.

replies(1): >>abdull+Dk
◧◩◪
11. renewi+5h[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-16 17:59:56
>>abdull+2c
The price changed a few times but they definitely had a lifetime thing once.

All pricing was entirely optional

Here's one reference to a different price (can't find lifetime except for people complaining that Facebook didn't honor it on original ToS)

https://www.wired.com/2011/11/whatsapp-messenger-app/

◧◩
12. fmajid+hh[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-16 18:00:29
>>abdull+1d
IIRC WhatsApp used to charge $1 per year

https://venturebeat.com/mobile/whatsapp-subscription/

◧◩◪
13. eviks+Hj[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-16 18:10:40
>>lxgr+Re
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 :)

replies(1): >>lxgr+Fk
◧◩
14. groby_+Jj[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-16 18:10:52
>>2OEH8e+ic
Sure, but privacy isn't black or white. A donation to signal does not compromise the content of your messaging.

So what you've leaked is the information that you have an interest in private conversations. This might be a problem in some countries, but I think it's fair to ask folks in affluent countries with working (sorta) democracies to shoulder that burden. I.e. you don't donate if there's elevated threat to your safety, there are enough people who aren't under elevated threat.

There's also the possibility of using a donation mixer like Silent Donor, though I'd evaluate that very carefully. (There's a record of the transfer in, and the mixer needs to keep temporary records for transferring out. There's also the question how you verify the mixer doesn't skim.)

Some donation mixers accept crypto currency, so for maximum paranoia, I suppose crypto->crypto mixer->donation mixer->charity might be workable. Or hand cash to a friend who donates in your stead.

As always, the best path is to set aside paranoia and build a threat model instead to see what the actual risks are.

replies(1): >>godels+aq
◧◩◪
15. rasso+Sj[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-16 18:11:25
>>nvy+q8
Except real privacy?
replies(2): >>sam_lo+bl >>umanwi+Iq
◧◩
16. V__+fk[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-16 18:13:10
>>2OEH8e+ic
There are clever ways around that. I use posteo as my mailprovider. They have a system where you can pay anonymously: https://posteo.de/en/site/payment
◧◩
17. godels+vk[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-16 18:14:15
>>2OEH8e+ic
They take checks by mail. You definitely can do a cashier's check and I'm sure they'd take the "cash in an envelope" method that places like Mullvad do too. Looks like they also support crypto, and that includes Zcash. So I don't think this is a great excuse. The only "can't easily donate" aspect is going to also be tied with the "can't easily get a cashier's check or find an anonymous person to sell me bitcoin for cash" kinda issues, and when you're operating at that level I'm not sure anything is "easy." (but that's not that hard usually)

https://support.signal.org/hc/en-us/articles/360031949872-Do...

replies(1): >>wkat42+ct
◧◩◪◨
18. abdull+Dk[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-16 18:14:41
>>lxgr+Yg
Indeed. I just ignored the dialog box the first time it popped up. But next year I paid. It was quite a big deal because back then it was equal to my entire monthly cellphone bill in Pakistan.

But I remember other people started to en masse switch to other messengers like Viber(?). And Whatsapp had to stop enforcing the fee.

replies(1): >>fwn+Zt2
◧◩◪◨
19. lxgr+Fk[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-16 18:14:53
>>eviks+Hj
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.

replies(1): >>eviks+et
◧◩◪◨
20. sam_lo+bl[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-16 18:16:44
>>rasso+Sj
Not even that, because it is linked to phone numbers.
replies(4): >>Oooooo+Ir >>leotra+NC >>marvin+uN >>Summer+kw4
21. teeker+Xm[view] [source] 2023-11-16 18:24:33
>>V__+(OP)
Whatsapp got pretty big at 1 eur/year (iOS) and 1 eur for lifetime (Android) here in the netherlands.

I do fear they'll loose most tech un-savvy users because they don't know how to pay (safely).

replies(1): >>wkat42+Fo
22. lencas+0n[view] [source] 2023-11-16 18:24:43
>>V__+(OP)
It’s beginning to sound like the 1 EUR/year that at some point WhatsApp wanted to charge and it seemed reasonable to me at the time. Signal is even better and even more so justified.
replies(1): >>rany_+iv
◧◩◪
23. hiatus+jn[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-16 18:26:11
>>nvy+q8
The sms decision made signal go from THE messaging app on my phone to an app I only use with a very small subset of my contacts. It is infuriating that they didn't allow users to retain that functionality when it costs them nothing, and they could have disabled it by default.
replies(2): >>urig+uo >>psalmi+GY
◧◩◪◨
24. urig+uo[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-16 18:31:11
>>hiatus+jn
You paid them nothing and are infuriated. Interesting.
replies(1): >>nani8o+OV
◧◩
25. wkat42+Fo[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-16 18:31:46
>>teeker+Xm
That doesn't mean they were actually profitable at those rates though. They could have been in growth hacking mode with venture backing.
replies(1): >>daniel+CG
◧◩◪
26. godels+aq[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-16 18:43:54
>>groby_+Jj
There's never enough talk like this and I'm not sure why. It's always about the threat model. In this respect I always like to think of it in terms of probability. Probabilities and likelihoods aren't just about capturing randomness like quantum fluctuations or rolling dice, they are fundamentally about capturing uncertainty. Your threat model is your conditions and you can only calculate likelihoods as you don't know everything. There are no guarantees of privacy or security. This is why I always hated the conversations around when Signal was discussing deleting messages and people were saying that it's useless because someone could have saved the message before you deleted them. But this is also standard practice in industry because they understand the probabilistic framework and that there's a good chance that you delete before they save. Framing privacy and security as binary/deterministic options doesn't just do a poor but "good enough approximation" of these but actually leads you to make decisions that would decrease your privacy and security!

It's like brute forcing, we just want something where we'd be surprised if someone could accomplish it within the lifetime of the universe though technically it is possible for them to get it on the very first try if they are very very lucky. Which is an extreme understatement. It's far more likely that you could walk up to a random door, put the wrong key in, have the door's lock fall out of place, and open it to find a bear, a methhead, and a Rabbi sitting around a table drinking tea, playing cards, and the Rabbi has a full house. I'll take my odds on 256 bit encryption.

◧◩◪◨
27. umanwi+Iq[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-16 18:46:20
>>rasso+Sj
Why is it more private than WhatsApp?
replies(3): >>Ar-Cur+js >>crtasm+6A >>krolta+lE
◧◩
28. heavys+br[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-16 18:48:31
>>2OEH8e+ic
Signal requires a real phone number to open an account, you are not anonymous to Signal.
replies(2): >>sneak+Ix >>nerdbe+ud1
◧◩
29. bilal4+Er[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-16 18:50:43
>>renewi+m9
I have an old receipt in my Google Pay for whatsapp at a whopping 99 cents :)
◧◩◪◨⬒
30. Oooooo+Ir[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-16 18:51:05
>>sam_lo+bl
Afaik you can crrate an account without a number.
replies(2): >>wkat42+Cs >>matric+8J
◧◩◪◨⬒
31. Ar-Cur+js[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-16 18:53:35
>>umanwi+Iq
I encourage you to read the article, but Signal minimizes the metadata it stores about you, doesn't hold on to you contact list, doesn't keep information about your IP address, etc.

WhatsApp instead makes tons of money from this kind of metadata.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
32. wkat42+Cs[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-16 18:55:17
>>Oooooo+Ir
No. You can just hide it from other users in group chats now (and perhaps 1:1, didn't yet check but you still need one to sign up)
replies(2): >>crtasm+iz >>Obscur+3a7
◧◩
33. jeroen+Fs[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-16 18:55:31
>>abdull+1d
With how much Mastodon.social tends to fall over when Twitter does something stupid (again), their rates are probably a bit too low for a more robust service like Signal.

Signal also intentionally doesn't store too much data, long term data costs will slowly grow over the years. I imagine for a bigger platform, costs can grow to multiples of the rates for Signal and smaller Mastodon servers.

€10 per year should be more than enough for most users, though, and it should be quite affordable for most countries.

replies(1): >>andrep+EI3
◧◩◪
34. wkat42+ct[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-16 18:57:59
>>godels+vk
How is a check in any way private? Your name is on it.
replies(2): >>godels+SC >>loteck+Uw1
◧◩◪◨⬒
35. eviks+et[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-16 18:58:02
>>lxgr+Fk
Why is it not an option when it already exists in many places (all these protections fail all the time)? Your first sentence doesn't imply high/expensive level of customer service

Besides, even now they're not ignoring all the complaints, the do fix bugs?

Maybe to be more specific, how much did it cost WhatsApp when they had $1 price and a tiny team? How does it compare to the cost of SMS?

replies(1): >>YetAno+Yt1
◧◩
36. rany_+iv[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-16 19:07:59
>>lencas+0n
They used to "require" a subscription of 1$/year but it was not enforced. If you missed the deadline, nothing happened. It was basically the WinRAR model but for an online service.
replies(1): >>polite+wx
◧◩◪
37. polite+wx[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-16 19:18:21
>>rany_+iv
That may have been an A/B testing of sorts then, because I was booted right away.
replies(1): >>rany_+Dz
◧◩◪
38. sneak+Ix[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-16 19:19:08
>>heavys+br
Phone numbers can be obtained anonymously in many countries. I have several anonymous Signal accounts, each with their own anonymous phone number.
replies(1): >>caeril+kD
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
39. crtasm+iz[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-16 19:25:20
>>wkat42+Cs
Where is the option for group chats please?
◧◩◪◨
40. rany_+Dz[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-16 19:27:40
>>polite+wx
> whether you’ve been required to pay WhatsApp’s annual fee depends very much on when you joined the service, and even on what country you live in.

Source: https://venturebeat.com/mobile/whatsapp-subscription/

◧◩◪◨⬒
41. crtasm+6A[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-16 19:29:36
>>umanwi+Iq
Using WhatsApp means Facebook/Meta knows the timestamp, sender and recipient of every message sent.
◧◩
42. caeril+0B[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-16 19:32:29
>>lepton+38
I'd pay much more than $2 if they offered account identifiers other than phone numbers. Trying to get a burner SIM or DID while still staying anonymous is getting increasingly difficult.

But I think it's pretty clear by now that this is a feature for FVEY IC, not a bug. FFS, they burned development resources on stickers, but abjectly refuse to offer alternative account identifiers. The standard apologist response is, "but phone numbers make adoption easier". Sure, but nobody is asking to replace the identifiers, or even to make them nondefault. We're just asking for the option. It could be hidden behind a developer mode for all I care, but it should be there.

The fact that they abjectly refuse to do it is enough to tell you about what their true motivations likely are.

replies(2): >>nurple+RD >>eviks+392
◧◩◪◨⬒
43. leotra+NC[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-16 19:40:15
>>sam_lo+bl
Yep, a great example: https://dessalines.github.io/essays/why_not_signal.html#phon...
◧◩◪◨
44. godels+SC[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-16 19:40:40
>>wkat42+ct
A cashier's check doesn't.
replies(1): >>wkat42+gO
◧◩◪◨
45. caeril+kD[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-16 19:42:15
>>sneak+Ix
It's possible in the US, but it's getting very difficult. I don't know anywhere you can buy or or borrow a DID with Monero anymore. Looks like they got to Telnum recently.

You can still buy a SIM, a prepaid PIN, and a phone with cash, but you'd need to pay a non-correlated person to be seen on CCTV to do it, at a non-correlated time, and hope they don't just take your money and leave you nothing at the dead drop.

Then there's the hassle of setting up the account in a way that's not correlated with your location, normal waking hours, etc.

All of this could just be avoided if Signal did the right thing.

But they won't. Ask yourself why.

replies(2): >>pizzaf+5U >>sneak+Q31
◧◩◪
46. lepton+zD[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-16 19:43:38
>>lxgr+Re
Thanks for over-analyzing my comment. $1/year, $2/year, $5/year, is all insignificant in the wide array of things I pay for. Sure, I'd pay $10/year for Signal as it is today if they really needed me to. And I never said to make payment mandatory. You're just way over analyzing a simple comment.
◧◩◪
47. nurple+RD[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-16 19:44:50
>>caeril+0B
Agreed, at this point I don't believe the "privacy" aspect of Signal's sales sheet means anything. Most that I know use it primarily because they can have clients on all platforms, including desktop.
◧◩◪◨⬒
48. krolta+lE[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-16 19:47:00
>>umanwi+Iq
Pay attention to WhatsApp's wording (all privacy/security claims start with "your messages"), and their privacy policy, and you'll see that while message involving with individuals (non-Business users) are secured, your contact list is not, neither are chats with businesses or the metadata about you chatting (destinations, frequency, time)
◧◩◪
49. daniel+CG[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-16 19:56:37
>>wkat42+Fo
They were well-known for not doing that, though.
replies(1): >>wkat42+Q81
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
50. matric+8J[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-16 20:07:07
>>Oooooo+Ir
Not yet, but they are working on that.
51. gwd+6M[view] [source] 2023-11-16 20:22:26
>>V__+(OP)
This is kind of the number I was looking for -- "Cover your own costs: $1/year. Cover yourself and five other people: $5/year." I feel like something pointing out that the costs are around $1/year on signing up, maybe with a reminder once a year, would get most people self-funding pretty quickly.
replies(1): >>tobinf+ee1
◧◩◪
52. hezral+RM[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-16 20:25:56
>>nvy+q8
My lawyer stopped using signal due to the sms support being dropped. It became too much of a hassle and wasn't worth it.

Many of my family also dropped Signal.

It is now really only used by the hyper-privacy conscious.

◧◩◪◨⬒
53. marvin+uN[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-16 20:30:28
>>sam_lo+bl
Username registration is currently being tested: https://community.signalusers.org/t/public-username-testing-...
replies(2): >>ixwt+q51 >>leshen+Vs2
◧◩◪◨⬒
54. wkat42+gO[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-16 20:34:33
>>godels+SC
Ah ok I didn't know those still existed. In fact even the named checks are long gone here in Europe lol.
replies(1): >>godels+i51
◧◩
55. XorNot+UR[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-16 20:50:58
>>lepton+38
I'd pay substantially more for Signal if I could bot accounts.

I'd like a signal daemon on all my servers for alerting which could message me via Signal. This is worth a monthly fee to me.

I know people running small businesses who would really like to have a business Signal account: an ability to send Signal messages as a business identity without tying it to some specific phone number. This would be worth a subscription even if they had to get their customers to install Signal.

Signal need to figure out what product they sell that's going to fund the privacy objective: because there's plenty and they're worth having.

replies(1): >>jenny9+7U
◧◩◪◨⬒
56. pizzaf+5U[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-16 20:59:26
>>caeril+kD
Why are you typing my comments?

Exactly. They won't because .... reasons.

◧◩◪
57. jenny9+7U[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-16 20:59:36
>>XorNot+UR
If you want one for just personal use; this works well: https://github.com/AsamK/signal-cli

Just sign up with a Twilio number (using voice call) and you can make your own bot.

replies(1): >>XorNot+cC1
◧◩◪◨⬒
58. nani8o+OV[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-16 21:06:14
>>urig+uo
Many people care about Signal, and it is okay to dislike their decision. OP didn't demand from Signal to support SMS, but they expressed their emotions about the change.

Signal is an awesome project but some of their decisions annoy many users. E.g. Signal does not allow to automatically save all pictures in the gallery. It's a privacy feature, but it's inconvenient since it forces me remember to download each image seperately.

◧◩◪◨
59. psalmi+GY[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-16 21:21:53
>>hiatus+jn
I still use Signal a lot, since most people I frequently talk to use it. However, this was extremely frustrating. Having 1 messaging app for so long was incredibly nice.
◧◩◪◨⬒
60. sneak+Q31[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-16 21:48:17
>>caeril+kD
Why would you not need to be seen on CCTV? This has nothing to do with the privacy of Signal.

I buy all of my anonymous prepaid SIMs with cash at retail myself, and they are still anonymous.

The only time you’d need to stay off CCTV is if you were using them to commit crimes and expected a significant investigation to be undertaken.

Your casual assertion of malice on the part of Signal is not supported by any facts.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
61. godels+i51[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-16 21:55:20
>>wkat42+gO
Oh yeah, I have an old checkbook that I've had since like 2010 because the only ones I've ever used are for random landlords. Otherwise it's literally easier to get a cashier's check, which you can (in America) do at any bank or grocery store. Note that some are free and some aren't, so check beforehand. I don't think these will ever really go away tbh
replies(1): >>wkat42+w81
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
62. ixwt+q51[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-16 21:55:55
>>marvin+uN
> and register for a new account with a phone number (you can use the same one you’re using in Production).

I hope that they make it so you can register WITHOUT a phone number. Perfectly fine if it's not the default. This is post is currently implying that is not currently the case.

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
63. wkat42+w81[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-16 22:11:59
>>godels+i51
I think they will, America is just very traditional. Things tend to stick around for longer. The magstripe also lingers there even though we've got rid of it for years (though unfortunately our cards still have them in case we need to visit the US - I don't like having them because they are skimmable).

Nobody would accept a check here anyway as they're not guaranteed. These days I pay with my watch or phone everywhere (Samsung Pay). I don't even use the chip on my card anymore. And payments between people happen digitally too (a system called Bizum here in Spain).

replies(2): >>blep_+ci1 >>godels+El1
◧◩◪◨
64. wkat42+Q81[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-16 22:13:54
>>daniel+CG
Hmm but then how did they manage before asking for that 1 euro? There were a whole lot of years where it was completely free (yes before the Facebook takeover). Here in Europe we've only needed to pay once or so until it got taken over.

There must have been some kind of venture backing because there was no money coming in at all from users for a long time.

replies(1): >>daniel+mt1
◧◩◪
65. nerdbe+ud1[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-16 22:37:09
>>heavys+br
I can pop into almost any phone shop around here and walk out with a free SIM card, which I can top up for cash.
◧◩
66. tobinf+ee1[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-16 22:41:08
>>gwd+6M
Reminds me of ... WhatsApp :D

(Originally WhatsApp charged $1/year.)

replies(1): >>gwd+uf3
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯
67. blep_+ci1[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-16 23:03:48
>>wkat42+w81
Have you considered intentionally corrupting the magstripe data by running a strong magnet over it?
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯
68. godels+El1[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-16 23:29:03
>>wkat42+w81
Maybe, but these some big utility to cashier's checks. They're essentially cash that can only be deposited by a specific party. I also don't think cash is going away anytime soon. And while it isn't common for me to issue a check, it isn't uncommon to receive a check. They're just always form businesses. Even ones that have my direct deposit information.

Fwiw, in America I use my phone to pay for everything too. But there are edge cases and tools like these often have utilities in domains that might not be common to the average person but are to specific groups. For example, these are often used in situations where cash is preferable but you wouldn't want to cary that around, like real estate down payments and buying a car. Some settings are sensitive to the exchange times (though that money looks like it is in your account instantly, it isn't).

I just wouldn't be so quick to make such a conclusion because it's pretty likely that your experience is not general. Despite America treating corporations like people, I'm pretty confident you aren't a corporation.

> Nobody would accept a check here anyway as they're not guaranteed.

Btw, a cashier's check is. Like I said, it is as good as cash.

◧◩◪◨⬒
69. daniel+mt1[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-17 00:24:01
>>wkat42+Q81
I looked further and you were pretty spot on! It ran a loss of 138 million in 2013 alone according to their SEC disclosures for that year.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
70. YetAno+Yt1[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-17 00:29:22
>>eviks+et
In a December 2013 blog post, WhatsApp claimed that 400 million active users used the service each month. The year 2013 ended with $148 million in expenses, of which $138 million in losses.[1]

FB acquired them next year and if my memory is correct there were 19 in the team then.

[1]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WhatsApp

replies(1): >>eviks+A82
◧◩◪◨
71. loteck+Uw1[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-17 00:52:42
>>wkat42+ct
Hi, privacy and anonymity are different things. Named transactions can still be private.
◧◩◪◨
72. XorNot+cC1[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-17 01:38:31
>>jenny9+7U
I know I could do these things, but the problem is (1) it's a cat and mouse game of trying to keep up with functionality they don't want to support and (2) means I'm not paying them for a service, which is the point of doing it.

IMO Signal need to figure out what they sell to people with the money to say "yes, this service helps me make money" so they fulfill the big mission statement. That's true viability.

Within that bucket there's some real obvious ones: server monitoring and alerting (I have Signal, let my severs have Signal so they can talk to me, maybe at an agreed reduced throughput rate so someone doesn't just try to run TCP/IP over it), and letting businesses have a secure multimedia messaging channel to their clients for notifications.

replies(1): >>Canada+ts4
◧◩◪
73. HKH2+lZ1[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-17 04:30:43
>>nvy+q8
I really don't get why people are still using SMS. Is data really that expensive?
74. Nemo_b+382[view] [source] 2023-11-17 06:05:43
>>V__+(OP)
WhatsApp in 2013 spent 148 M$/y with 400 MAU, or about 0.375 $/user-year. That's remarkably similar!

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=WhatsApp&oldid=11...

(Small difference is that WhatsApp had a profitability of –93 %.)

◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
75. eviks+A82[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-17 06:13:54
>>YetAno+Yt1
That $ figure tells us nothing as it includes those same huge SMS costs that Signal is on an unsustainable path to rack up

With just a bit more effort you can see that most of those $148 are not related to the extra customer support we're discussing, but rather to the things that Signal is already doing

Costs and expenses in 2013:

Cost of revenue 53 (payment processing fees, infrastructure costs, SMS verification fees and employee compensation for part of operations team)

R&D 77 (engineering and technical teams who are responsible for the design, development, and testing of the features)

G&A 19

replies(1): >>YetAno+Xl2
◧◩◪
76. eviks+392[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-17 06:20:24
>>caeril+0B
> We're just asking for the option

Indeed, the Wire messenger is done like this - it offers phone number, but has an option to not use them and only rely on the usernames (although I think you need to register in the web browser for that)

77. 8n4vid+od2[view] [source] 2023-11-17 07:08:30
>>V__+(OP)
I'm paying what works out to about 15 cents per "booking" in my app due to API fees. Maybe more,.. and I'm just now realizing we'll probably be losing money if people used their accounts to their limits. Like 500 bookings would cost me at least $75 but we charge about 50. Anyway $1/year is great
78. goodpo+3h2[view] [source] 2023-11-17 07:48:36
>>V__+(OP)
Very reasonable with only 40 million users?! It's shockingly expensive.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯
79. YetAno+Xl2[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-17 08:40:11
>>eviks+A82
So for $10M revenue, they had $53M cost of revenue. I think asking for $1 is never going to be sustainable, even if leave all other costs. My guess is that "employee compensation for part of operations team" is the primary one taking all the cost, as payment processing fees couldn't be more than the revenue itself and one message is pretty cheap.
replies(1): >>eviks+qt2
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓
80. leshen+Vs2[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-17 09:46:06
>>marvin+uN
So this puts signal on par with telegram, not above? Am I missing something?
replies(1): >>Summer+Ox4
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔⧯▣
81. eviks+qt2[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-17 09:49:56
>>YetAno+Xl2
Why not? Someone calculated above that total costs are below $1 for Signal even with all the SMS waste (also, it doesn't have to be a literal $1)

Besides, the original point was about huge$ from running a paid vs free app, which isn't the case

◧◩◪◨⬒
82. fwn+Zt2[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-17 09:54:13
>>abdull+Dk
I was billed 0,99€ (Germany) exactly once, but was able to use WhatsApp without payment for most of the time just by ignoring the notification. I remember that they repeatedly gave grace periods and just set another payment date a few weeks later.
◧◩◪
83. gwd+uf3[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-17 14:59:52
>>tobinf+ee1
And I was SOOO happy when I heard WhatsApp's business model: Finally, I'M THE CUSTOMER! I gladly signed up for the "free year" and started getting other people to sign up for it... only to have it bought by FB, and never charged my $1 yearly fee. :-(

Then I tried to get people to use Telegram, but hey never implemented encryption by default, instead implementing things like chatrooms with millions of people... then I signed up for Signal, but waited to see what would happen -- and they started doing some weird crypto thing. Thankfully that all seems to have not been an issue, so I might actually start recommending Signal.

replies(1): >>tobinf+W6k
◧◩
84. andrep+uI3[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-17 16:55:51
>>abdull+1d
Yeah, the issue is more that there is substantial friction in paying any amount of money, especially in poorer countries with no access to e.g. banking or payment cards. I'm sure no one here, and few people even in comparatively poorer countries, would object if Signal/their messenger of choice cost 0.60$ per year to use. The problem is that making the service have a ~1$/yr price tag (as WhatsApp once had) is itself a barrier to a huge portion of the target audience.
replies(1): >>abdull+7V3
◧◩◪
85. andrep+EI3[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-17 16:56:54
>>jeroen+Fs
Signal also fell over flat when the whatsapp outage happened a couple years ago. It's just difficult to handle spikes in demand.
◧◩◪
86. abdull+7V3[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-17 17:40:30
>>andrep+uI3
In Pakistan at least, sometimes you can donate to charity etc by texting a special number [1]. That subtracts some fixed amount from your prepaid mobile balance (which the vast majority of people use) or adds to your postpaid bill. I imagine its possible for some business to charge customers this way as well.

Then again, instant C2C and C2B digital payments using mobile phones is growing extremely fast in most of the global south.

[1] https://www.app.com.pk/national/pta-introduces-9999-sms-code...

replies(1): >>Obscur+687
◧◩◪◨⬒
87. Canada+ts4[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-17 19:52:23
>>XorNot+cC1
I find signald better. It also supports acting like a desktop client... so you can just add it to your account easily. signal-cli might do that also, but I stopped using it in favor of signald when I found that one.

But yeah, I hear you. It would be nice if it had a official bot interface where maybe all the bot's receipients have to be whitelisted so that it's easy to use for stuff like server monitoring but not easy to use for spamming.

◧◩◪◨⬒
88. Summer+kw4[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-17 20:10:56
>>sam_lo+bl
Signal is private, but not anonymous. Related, but two different things.
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
89. Summer+Ox4[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-17 20:16:38
>>leshen+Vs2
Telegram's encryption is opt-in which means most people don't use the encrypted chats at all.
◧◩◪◨
90. Obscur+687[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-18 13:31:30
>>abdull+7V3
Very legal and very cool? Sounds awesome :)
◧◩◪◨⬒⬓⬔
91. Obscur+3a7[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-18 13:40:55
>>wkat42+Cs
Does that require the sealed-sender thingy?
◧◩◪◨
92. tobinf+W6k[view] [source] [discussion] 2023-11-21 20:02:59
>>gwd+uf3
Yup. Same, re: WhatsApp and the $1 annual fee. It made so much sense "lightweight service, charge $1/year, have 1 billion customers."

These days I use Signal mainly. But also WhatsApp. And Messenger. And SMS for folks who don't have any of the others.

And my iPhone friends complain about how terrible it is to text Android-users, because iMessage.

Oh I should add that it seems that college students these days have standardized on messaging through ... instagram.

[go to top]