So what's wrong with Signal's business model? I followed the link, and none of these seem to apply to Signal, which is a funded free and open source project.
Although I don't get why Signal Messenger LLC was formed alongside the Signal Foundation non-profit. Why not just have the non-profit? Still, it's open source.
Signal is easy to set up, it shouldn't be too hard to convince your contacts to use it. The exception is that some parts of the world have really restricted internet access and only allow certain apps like WhatsApp.
Trying to move a large set of person to change their habits is hard and tiring. It reminds me like when we tried to convince people to stop using Microsoft Office and adopt OpenOffice instead.
The sad situation is that the only alternative that convinced people to do so has been Google Documents, which is a cure worse than the disease.
Regarding the business model, I would love a world based on open source foundations where everybody contribute the way they can, but I have grew pessimistic on this. Making software is hard and expensive and making a product is even harder and expensive. IMO making an app like Signal is much more different that making a pure software product like the Linux Kernel. And, again, large, successfully project have been, well, successfully, often because large companies adopted them giving money and developers (which brings us to the bulshitty business model).
Although I don't get why Signal Messenger LLC was formed alongside the Signal Foundation non-profit. Why not just have the non-profit? Still, it's open source.
Signal is easy to set up, it shouldn't be too hard to convince your contacts to use it. The exception is that some parts of the world have really restricted internet access and only allow certain apps like WhatsApp.