Whatsapp vs Signal — The Messenger Monetization Problem

I remember using Whatsapp in 2011. There was a small “fee” associated with it — $1 or INR 55 per year after the first year of free usage. Every year I would be scared and confused because they would message me that I need not pay for this year as my fees are “waived”.

Eventually, when Facebook acquired it, I was sure that I wouldn’t need to pay for it any time in the future. Mr. Zuckerberg’s idea of monetization is very simple — he trades our information for cash, from which he is able to generate revenue and provide better services. Now, mind well — in no way is this a noble cause — but for all the good work he has done in connecting the world together, he deserves to be credited for turning social communications into money-making opportunities. Previously this was only available to spammers on Blogger (or blogspot.com).

That being said, I doubt if Whatsapp would have survived without the acquisition. The company may have boasted of transmitting the largest amount of messages in a single day but with their bleak pricing strategy, I doubt if they would have any self-reliance on the financial part. The founders of Whatsapp were geeks who wanted to change the world. Most geeks are like that — they will go for change but not for sustenance.

Had they figured out a good monetization strategy, Whatsapp would have been an independent organization — the one that Signal is touted to be. I have used Signal and my friends have started joining it. But I don’t know how long this app will last. I have to use it with the same amount of insecurity as I used Whatsapp back in the early days. That’s until another Facebook buys Signal and spends billions on sustaining it to figure out a monetizing policy.

And then, another Signal will pop up.