Image by günter on Pixabay

Why twonly has a monthly fee

When I told people about my plans to monetise twonly, the most common question I was asked was: ‘Why should I pay when there are free alternatives?’ This is a legitimate question and in this blog post I want to address it and discuss the different funding options.

The hidden costs

Although most apps in the Play Store are free, they all have to be developed. As with twonly, most apps also require servers to be maintained or a cloud provider to be paid so that users can communicate with each other through them. I'm currently still doing twonly in my spare time, so I only have the operating costs for hosting, which are currently manageable due to the low number of users. But this approach is not sustainable in the long term, as I also have to pay my bills. Especially when the number of users increases, both development costs and hosting costs will inevitably rise. Take Signal, for example, which estimates it will spend around $50 million by 2025. That's quite a lot if you offer your app for free. In the next section, we'll look at the different options for funding the app and their pros and cons.

Different Financing options

There are a whole range of different messenger apps such as Signal, all of which have adopted a different approach. A comprehensive overview of the different messaging platforms and their operational funding methods can be found here. These funding options can be categorised as follows:

• Donation-based
• Investors
• Subscriptions
• Advertisements / Selling Data
• Donation-based

Donation-based

While donation-based funding is a great option, securing donors, especially in the early stages, can be quite challenging. For instance, among over 50 contacts in my Signal contact list, only one has chosen to donate. Consequently, to cover its projected $50 million expenses, Signal relies on a few large, often non-transparent donors. While Signal is arguably one of the best messaging apps available, this reliance raises concerns while the motivations of these donors is not known. Even though I would like to offer twonly on a donation basis, I can't imagine finding enough small donors who would voluntarily decide to pay for it. And with twonly I want create a real sustainable alternative to the existing American apps that doesn't have to be discontinued due to funding problems.

Investors

Investors typically seek a return on their investment, which merely postpones the financial challenges while potentially compromising control over the app. This shift can lead to a degradation of security as investors may prioritize profit over user privacy, potentially resulting in the sale of user data.

Advertisements / Selling Data

Relying on advertisements or selling user data is in my optinion the least desirable option. This model necessitates extensive knowledge about users, which not only jeopardizes their privacy but also empowers companies to manipulate public discourse, as evidenced by platforms like Facebook.

Subscriptions

Subscriptions are a realistic alternative, even if it can be difficult to build up a large user base. This model offers a transparent and clear funding approach that enables the creation of a sustainable revenue stream. By introducing a subscription model, we can ensure proper maintenance of the app while avoiding dependence on large donors or compromising user data. I actually like this the best, for example I use a paid email provider (1€/month) that, like twonly, doesn't sell my personal data and does everything to protect my privacy. While I only pay €1/month, my emails are not automatically scanned to show me relevant ads and the company can pay its bills - so in my opinion it's a pretty good win-win situation.

Conclusion

Although I like the idea of donation-based funding, I don't think this will allow twonly to become a sustainable alternative that will be around for the next 10 years. I also like the idea of a clear and transparent funding option where no big donors or investors can gain control of the app and change it in a way that would jeopardise user privacy. Mozilla, for example, which is based on donations, has become more and more dependent on Google's money and is now jeopardising the privacy of its users as this funding option no longer exists.