Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by gkoberger 899 days ago
A few other things that could contribute to a slowing growth rate:

1. People build software differently now. There's not as much reliance on text messages (fewer phone apps build built, 2fa via phone is considered dangerous, etc)

2. Gig economy is stabilizing. There was a huge increase in new companies for years, but at this point it feels like we've stalled on new innovations in that space (while a lot of VC-subsidized ones have faded out)

3. There's way more regulations on spam (good for us, bad for Twilio). I think Twilio did as good a job of avoiding spam as anyone could reasonably expect, but the barrier to entry to using Twilio for even reasonable projects now involves the government. Plus with the crackdown on spam (good!), a portion of their business has likely been affected.

2 comments

I have no idea the breakdown of their revenue, but my understanding is that now they do a lot more than just the SMS they were famous for. Especially with all the companies they bought.
Semi-related to your third point, I do not trust a text message from a company that does not use the shortened phone number system that was popularized by Twilio. It's the easiest way to detect phishing attempts because scammers don't use those.
Wait, you trust shortened numbers more than un-shortened ones? That hadn't occurred to me before.
Why wouldn't you? Anyone and their mother could get a long code number from Twilio for $1/mo, without any kind of verification or KYC process.

Meanwhile, a short code would run you $4500 for three months (IIRC, memory is fuzzy, and it's probably changed), and you had to go through an approval process with all the mobile carriers (that is, Verizon, T-Mobile, etc. had to individually approve the short code) where you explained your use case and promised not to spam.

(Obviously things are different now with the campaign registration and approvals requires even for long code numbers. But short codes are still harder to get, and the approvals more rigorous.)