I was disappointed in the post -- a lot of the comments are complaining that the whole article could have been summed up as "they're non-profit -- donations, si

I was disappointed in the post -- a lot of the comments are complaining that the whole article could have been summed up as "they're non-profit -- donations, silly"; I agree[0]. And the answer was a bit of a non-answer. How do they make money[1]? Easy answer -- since the organization behind it is non-profit, it doesn't (which is even more confusing since the author seems to think their "stock" went up 1,100%?!). For me, however, the question isn't "How do they make money", it's "Are they able to make enough money that they will continue to be around for me to rely on?"[2]. If I were a Signal user, that last part would be the only reason I'd be interested in clicking, and the article didn't really answer that. [0] Not knocking the author -- perhaps it's not a great post for the HN crowd because the summary version wouldn't have been news to any of us, but may have been news to people outside of our industry [1] I've always loved that statement -- "Make" Money -- but I would have chosen something more precise; I read it as "How is Signal Profitable", hence my taking issue with the answer, but I equally recognize that I'm being pedantic. [2] Which, itself, is simply a variant of "When I need it, will it work?" -- important, because (knowing nothing about Signal other than the name and its relation to WhatsApp) if the product can survive without the company (i.e. software that operates without server hardware managed/funded by a company -- Bitcoin)