No, they don’t have recurring costs that scale with their size. The whole original point of my argument was that Signal is fine now because its userbase is above averagely passionate about it and willing to donate, but if it were to become mainstream that would mean the percent of its users donating would go down whilst its cost would go up, in other words its costs would outscale its revenue. This doesn’t apply to GaprheneOS as their costs don’t scale with the number of users.
I think you’re missing the point. All I was saying is that both Signal and Graphene are both nonprofits and both seem to be doing okay with their donations business model.
And donations aren’t just a euro here and there from users. Proton is rumoured to be one of Graphene’s supporters.
Yes but my entire point is that it just isn’t comparable because of the insane scales we’re talking about. For example, WhatsApp has 2 billion monthly active users. Let’s say Signal had the same number and let’s say it costs them 0.5$ per user per year (probably an underestimate). That’s 1 billion dollars in yearly expenses. Wikipedia, which is one of the most successful donation based companies to my knowledge, has a yearly income of only 180 million $. I just don’t see there being enough donation capacity in the general population to sustain that high of a figure.
GrapheneOS might be fine even with 2 bilion users with the same amount of funding as they have now, because their costs aren’t tied to their userbase. But scaling Signal to the size we’re talking about is an entirely different beast.
I’d say that they are. Graphene has to serve up the installs for all the different devices they support. That’s a lot of data to shift. On top of that there is pumping out updates every second day. Then there is user support. All of these will scale.
my entire point is that it just isn’t comparable
I don’t know why this point is so important to you. Of course the two organisations aren’t 100% comparible but there are strong similarities. Both are tech, both nonprofit, both offering a free product for the greater good and both rely on donations. Both will have costs that scale - they might not be the same to-the-penny but they will exist. Thats just the nature of the beast.
Redex68@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
No, they don’t have recurring costs that scale with their size. The whole original point of my argument was that Signal is fine now because its userbase is above averagely passionate about it and willing to donate, but if it were to become mainstream that would mean the percent of its users donating would go down whilst its cost would go up, in other words its costs would outscale its revenue. This doesn’t apply to GaprheneOS as their costs don’t scale with the number of users.
SheenSquelcher@lemm.ee 4 weeks ago
I think you’re missing the point. All I was saying is that both Signal and Graphene are both nonprofits and both seem to be doing okay with their donations business model.
And donations aren’t just a euro here and there from users. Proton is rumoured to be one of Graphene’s supporters.
Redex68@lemmy.world 4 weeks ago
Yes but my entire point is that it just isn’t comparable because of the insane scales we’re talking about. For example, WhatsApp has 2 billion monthly active users. Let’s say Signal had the same number and let’s say it costs them 0.5$ per user per year (probably an underestimate). That’s 1 billion dollars in yearly expenses. Wikipedia, which is one of the most successful donation based companies to my knowledge, has a yearly income of only 180 million $. I just don’t see there being enough donation capacity in the general population to sustain that high of a figure.
GrapheneOS might be fine even with 2 bilion users with the same amount of funding as they have now, because their costs aren’t tied to their userbase. But scaling Signal to the size we’re talking about is an entirely different beast.
SheenSquelcher@lemm.ee 4 weeks ago
I’d say that they are. Graphene has to serve up the installs for all the different devices they support. That’s a lot of data to shift. On top of that there is pumping out updates every second day. Then there is user support. All of these will scale.
I don’t know why this point is so important to you. Of course the two organisations aren’t 100% comparible but there are strong similarities. Both are tech, both nonprofit, both offering a free product for the greater good and both rely on donations. Both will have costs that scale - they might not be the same to-the-penny but they will exist. Thats just the nature of the beast.