I'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.
If you lower the ask, you'll get more people to pay, but will it lead to more revenue in total?
In my experience, I don't think so. It's really hard to get users to pay for a free app. If you've gotten them over the activation energy required, it usually works better to ask for more. Users who contribute less also tend to churn more and cause more support burden. So you don't need just to convert 6x more at $10 / yr vs. $60 / yr but more like 10x. And 10x is really, really hard to do, ime. Again, the main thing you fight is getting users to pay anything at all.
For users willing to donate at all, the difference between (say) $2 and $5 might not be that much. Asking for more might therefore actually maximize the return.
All other users probably wouldn't donate regardless of whether it's $1 or less, so why bother considering them in your model. (edit) Offering an $1 option would just get you 0 of these users, and possibly lower the returns of the otherwise-$5-donaters above.
Also, maybe they have fixed costs per transaction? If they have to pay, say $0.50 per (totally made up), that would eat up 50% of a $1 contribution, but only 10% of a $5 one. It wouldn't make much sense to go through the trouble of soliciting donations if they lost too much of it to fees.
I'm in a third world country and even I would contribute $10 a year. I already contribute to Wikipedia on occasion. Making it monthly feels like too much of an obligation.
This was quite debunked last time - they do have reserves because in case something really bad happens (eg. people stop donating), they don’t want to go down instantly. I really don’t see how having a few years worth of reserves a bad thing - people really held open-source/non-profit companies to impossible standards.
Debunked... how? Can you link to this "debunking"?
>they do have reserves because in case something really bad happens (eg. people stop donating), they don’t want to go down instantly. I really don’t see how having a few years worth of reserves a bad thing - people really held open-source/non-profit companies to impossible standards.
This was addressed in the article.
>The WMF’s financial independence is clearly not at any risk. So what is going on? The official answer is that the WMF thinks you can never have too much money put aside for a rainy day. The WMF also has high-flying, global plans to “become the essential infrastructure of the ecosystem of free knowledge” by 2030. It says it wants to create “knowledge equity”—a world where people everywhere will have as much access to information in their own language as a first-world citizen—and that this will require continuous budget increases. In all of these endeavors, it is aided by the discovery that it has a money tap in Wikipedia, built through the work of volunteers, that it can open whenever it pleases.
The article isn't just decrying wikimedia building a massive reserve, it's decrying them massively expanding their scope.
Donation drives aren’t misleading. Donation drives don’t use shadow profiles. Donation drives don’t impact content. Donation drives don’t convince my grandma that she needs to send the IRS Target gift cards.
Right, they just install some ads and then next thing you know they’re trying to optimize page views and mysteriously the articles get split into multiple pages and the site gets worse and worse over time.
On top of that, the fact that they could implement ads is no reason to not contribute to them right now.
Running ads would make them beholden to advertisers. Though I would say don't contribute to Wikipedia because it has enough money to fund itself. What you are actually donating to is Wikimedia, which may or may not be doing things you want to donate too. Similar to how donating to Firefox is actually donating to Mozilla, who may or may not do anything you consider useful with it.
For what it is and how it contributes to me daily I don't believe it's high. $5/month for the peace of mind Signal provides is something I can make a case for. I subscribe to the $10/month level - because everyone in my circle uses it, and I pushed many of them in that direction. I want it to succeed, I want it to continue to improve, I want it to be available. I know I spend more than $10/month on other things that could easily be argued are far less useful than Signal.
That being said I do think there's value in a $1/month option, because that shouldn't be hard to rationalize. If something that's ad-free, operationally simple, and provides an improved level of privacy for it's users - one that requires humans and services to operate and be maintained - and still that can't be rationalized at $1/month, then the end user doesn't value what Signal is or can offer. Never mind the tradeoff one makes for "free" alternatives.
I get your argument but remember a lot of users aren't in the united states.
In India, Amazon prime is around $1.5/ month. Same $2.5 for Netflix mobile only basic plan.
My point is, $5/month might sound reasonable for most folk in the us but outside that, with purchasing power greatly reduced to a factor of 1:80 for example with India and USA conversion rate, these sound very expensive.
So my question is, should I pay netflix the privilege to enable me to not pirate because its easier or pay double to signal for something like matrix can give for free or self hosted at my own cost?
I don't pay for any of the said services because I find those prices too much so there is no way I could be bothered to use signal and pay for it.
I would rather set up a matrix server at a lowendbox vps, pay for annual subscription and get all my friends over. I pay for fun of learning about stuff, managing it and knowing I control the data
Completely understand where you're coming from and the cost implications. I'm curious about your position on Amazon Prime. It's a loss leader so you're compelled to spend more at Amazon. Are you spending more with Amazon to rationalize the Prime subscription? That's the goal and why they offer it.
You also state...
> I would rather set up a matrix server at a lowendbox vps
...and my guess here is that you're going to spend roughly $2-5/month doing this anyway. Plus your hours invested. This is squarely why I'm willing to donate to Signal via my contribution. There's value in someone making sure that this works for me and those I communicate with on Signal. I manage and control far too many other things - so I'm also with you on having that control, knowing about alternatives and controlling my data when and where it makes sense. But I don't want to be in the business of owning a messaging platform for friends and family and Signal fills that gap in a great way.
My post was purely a positional statement and not meant to be construed as any sort of guilt trip of those who don't contribute.
my post was on cost basis. not much. other commenter says 200 rupees which is fine but its the same as netflix.
my point is, if we are doing apples and apples comparison, old free signal competed with whatsapp/telegram. now, it is competing with netflix and prime in terms of cost because whatsapp/telegram is not paid for now.
my point is, if you are paying, why not go all the way and support matrix? signal is pretty hostile towards foss ideology and building your own servers, clients and such. the idea was "diluting the brand" but now its apparent. they wanted the signal brand to remain with the official services only because then they can charge for it.
can't you pay for matrix https://element.io/personal-plans if you do not plan to deal with the hassle of selfhosting which imo many people enjoy.
i understand the network effect of signal/whatsapp/telegram because the whole number directory thing but other than that, what does it have "better" than matrix? assuming tomorrow ALL your friends and their friends of friends use matrix instead of signal, would you feel the difference?
i am not shilling for matrix in particular. this just seems to be the better free software (foss) alternative to signal shenanigans and their disdain towards foss ideology
Good relatively high-performant virtual machines can be had for $0 a month. I know of at least three different ways of getting them (all 100% legal), plus a few that don't work anymore.
> Plus your hours invested
These hours have payed many times over thanks to knowledge and experience gained from them.
> I get your argument but remember a lot of users aren't in the united states.
> In India, Amazon prime is around $1.5/ month. Same $2.5 for Netflix mobile only basic plan.
> My point is, $5/month might sound reasonable for most folk in the us but outside that, with purchasing power greatly reduced to a factor of 1:80 for example with India and USA conversion rate, these sound very expensive.
They have a currency selector. If you pick Indian rupees, the the base level is 200 rupees a month (which Google says is $2.68).
I have tried and, dude, my group will just not change from their pre-installed messaging apps, except for 2 of them. They don't care that it's more secure (arguably) or that you can pull it up on your computer (my main reason for using it), they just have no interest.
My situation is, likely, a bit different. On the familial side I required it to participate in sharing of data. Those who didn't want to use it (none) couldn't participate. Nobody really minded and when I explained why - everyone thought it made sense. I also happen to be surrounded by family who trusts each other in their respective fields and I happen to be the only one in a technical position. So, by default, my opinion has weight (good, bad or otherwise). Easy sell there and it costs all participants $0. There's about a dozen users in this group that are active.
Friends and colleagues are a different tact. I work in a space where Signal makes sense for what I do, people already get it. There are people I work with that I've incented to start using it based on Signal groups they couldn't participate in otherwise. That worked well, but bootstrapping that is the hurdle. Some didn't know what Signal was and didn't question it at all when I suggested it (probably not the best approach). Looking at my Signal "Insights" for the week and I'm at 97% encrypted messaging. The 3% is service messages being delivered via SMS and one person I've texted that I've only recently started interacting with. I've used the "I need to send you this securely" a few times, which has also worked well. In those cases, since the barrier to entry is just installing, it's rarely been met with resistance.
I'm not sure these help. I'd like to think I've trickled Signal out to hundreds of people over the years. Keep in mind when I started with this it was RedPhone/TextSecure, so it's been years. Consistency is a helpful driver.
I had some luck with a subset of friends but not all of them. A big group is still on Hangouts or whatever Google calls it now. My advice is you target 2 close friends and propose to try it out for a week. If you win them over then you can start working on more.
Software advocacy isn't easy by any means. Most people want to not shake the boat of their current habits especially since it will take effort and time to get accustomed.
I don't switch to Signal, Whatsapp, Telegram, Facebook Messenger, Discord, etc. because I have several different friend groups, family groups and people which belong to none of these groups I message with. Occasionally someone from one of the groups will try to get people to switch but the problem is none of them choose the same messaging app, so changing now puts people in the position of having to use multiple different messaging apps and remembering which they need to use for each person. It is a lot easier to stick to the common ground everyone has which in the US is your pre-installed messaging app. On the iPhone this allows you to reach everyone via either Apple's proprietary service or SMS. On Android this allows you to reach everyone via SMS or RCS. When you ask your friends to switch messaging apps you are asking them to do something which complicates their use of messaging but appears to provide no relevant benefits to them.
> I have tried and, dude, my group will just not change from their pre-installed messaging apps, except for 2 of them. They don't care that it's more secure (arguably) or that you can pull it up on your computer (my main reason for using it), they just have no interest.
How close is your group? It's probably feasible to convince best friends and family to switch, but if your group contains a lot of less close friends and acquaintances, I doubt it's possible for one person to initiate a switch.
Also, it helps if you're willing to be a bit difficult, and refuse to continue to use the old app. But that only works with people who are close enough to care about communicating with you.
Yeah, the two people I have convinced to switch are my wife and someone I know who works in tech and I've known since highschool... so a very long time, lol
This argument always comes up, and the general conclusion is that the vast, vast, vast majority of people will never willingly donate a single penny. Those that will donate typically aren't price-sensitive.
I completely agree with you and would give, say, $12/year. But there's no way I'm giving $5/month. Luckily Signal also has a "booster" one-time donation option so I'm just going to "boost" twelve bucks. Maybe I'll remember to give again next February, who knows?
A simple "pay what you want" would be superior. I'd probably do $2/month for Signal. $60/year is way too much to ask and as a result, I did one month, then cancelled. Perhaps I'll do that again in six months, but maybe not.
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.
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?
Threema is a better comparison. They offer a commercial, ad-free product with E2E for a one-time fee of 3.99€ in the iOS app store. They also don't sell your address book or other data. They don't even have your phone number.
If that's the case, any price is a losing proposition - since you're competing with free. Users don't do business-case analysis, they barely compare features. I'm not sure the Signal features can easily justify $5 over FB/WA/Insta.
You can also make single donations called "signal boosts". For example, I try to throw them a little bit of money every now and then but would not go to a subscription.
Those are defaulted to 4 6 12 25 60 125 but you can enter a custom amount.
This month I donated in Indian Rupees (just like I do with YouTube Premium family), every month I will pick a different currency (tbd). With YT I had to figure out an existing address in India, with Signal it seems I can pick any (even tho my number starts with +31).
I agree. I love using signal and have converted most of my friends to it, but $60/year is too high for me for a chat app. I’d pay a dollar a month, maybe two.
Anything that costs less than Netflix I'll subscribe to without thinking about it, especially if it's something like Signal that I use every day. If you don't have 5 dollars a month for them, that's fine, but I'm sure enough people do that they're doing alright.
I'd bet that they get more by asking this price from more users rather than targeting more subscribers at cheaper prices.
I think you might be talking about Brian Acton's loans to them? If so, yeah, they have to pay those off at some point, which begs the question why they took a loan in the first place. They were getting grants and things like that, so taking millions that they have to pay back, especially from a guy who sold WhatsApp to Facebook is... an interesting course of action.
I have no insights in how they use that money, but I sure hope they have not spent it already on 300 SF developer years, but rather treat it as an endowment. In the long run - spending 1-5 million every year, investing the rest - it shouldn't be too difficult to preserve the nominal value over such a long time frame.
> By the end of 2018, the loan had increased to $105,000,400, which is due to be repaid on February 28, 2068. The loan is unsecured and at 0% interest.
This is from Signal Foundation's Wikipedia. There is a schedule.
