[chii]

> But that is marketing not coding.

it's the network effect.

If normies who don't care for things (which is most people tbh) don't decide to switch, do you, as a techie/early adopter, just turn off whatsapp and disconnect with your normie friends? You are unlikely to be important enough in the friend group to force a switch, not to mention that this needs to happen enmass for a swing in the network effect to happen.

[AnthonyMouse]

Being implacably stubborn is underrated. People can trivially have two messaging apps on their phone, which means they can all still contact you while using WhatsApp with other people. Then they all slowly end up with Signal on their phone, at which point who needs WhatsApp at all?

"The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable man persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man."

[arter45]

Yes, you can have two messaging apps, but people will have a “main app” which is typically the one used by important people in their life (family, partner,…) and/or the one used by most people. Meanwhile, if you all use two apps, everytime you want to check up on a friend you have to check two apps.

Imagine all your friends love pizza, as do you. Suddenly you decide sushi is better so, naturally, you tell your friends to try out sushi at the next dinner. Assuming some of your friends are not absolutely against sushi, yes, you’ll have that sushi dinner. But what if they don’t like it that much? They will revert to pizza or accept sushi, occasionally, when they want to see you, while still prefering pizza for all other interactions.

There has to be a perceived advantage for changing habits. If few people see the benefits of Signal or other non-Whatsapp apps, they will not change their minds.

[AnthonyMouse]

> Meanwhile, if you all use two apps, everytime you want to check up on a friend you have to check two apps.

You just have to check the one they use. Also, both of the apps would support notifications when something has happened in that app.

> But what if they don’t like it that much?

There is no real advantage of WhatsApp over Signal except that some people are already using it, and a significant privacy disadvantage. Once someone already has Signal then the advantage of WhatsApp is gone and only the disadvantage remains.

[arter45]

Everything is a trade-off.

Signal trades some decreased convenience (for example in terms of backup) for some added security. Whatsapp has more “cosmetic” features (polls,…).

If you value privacy over convenience and other features Signal is a great choice. If you value convenience and other features over privacy Whatsapp is a great choice.

I think it’s safe to say that different people have different priorities which result in different choices.

[AnthonyMouse]

> Signal trades some decreased convenience (for example in terms of backup)

This can't be a barrier to adoption in practice because most people don't even know that it's a thing in order to consider it as a difference, and anyone who both does and cares about it from the outset would have no trouble setting up automatic backups with Signal, and then appreciate the privacy advantage.

> Whatsapp has more “cosmetic” features (polls,…).

https://support.signal.org/hc/en-us/articles/9971667844506-S...

> If you value privacy over convenience and other features Signal is a great choice. If you value convenience and other features over privacy Whatsapp is a great choice.

There is no actual reason to use Whatsapp except for the network effect.

[chii]

> Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.

and only those who actually succeed being unreasonable is remembered. The other unreasonable people simply get forgotten or ignored - the vast majority.

[AnthonyMouse]

Succeeding a small percentage of the time results in dramatically more success than having no one even try.

Also, you're promoting defeatism. If it's just you and you succeed 1% of the time, it still helps a little. If it's millions of people -- even if that's a small minority of the population -- and they each succeed 1% of the time, that's actually a lot of groups getting converted. And it's more likely to succeed the more people in each group who do it.

So the conclusion should be that everybody should do it, since that improves everybody's odds, rather than that nobody should.

[chii]

You didnt calculate in the cost of failure. The success of someone being unreasonable might return good results for everyone else (but this is not known ahead of time - otherwise, it would not be considered unreasonable before the success!)

Therefore, you risk the loss resulting from a failure.

It's why you don't just use this argument to gamble or buy lottery tickets.