this post was submitted on 17 Nov 2023
0 points (NaN% liked)

Technology

59099 readers
3147 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

Signal’s president reveals the cost of running the privacy-preserving platform—not just to drum up donations, but to call out the for-profit surveillance business models it competes against.

The encrypted messaging and calling app Signal has become a one-of-a-kind phenomenon in the tech world: It has grown from the preferred encrypted messenger for the paranoid privacy elite into a legitimately mainstream service with hundreds of millions of installs worldwide. And it has done this entirely as a nonprofit effort, with no venture capital or monetization model, all while holding its own against the best-funded Silicon Valley competitors in the world, like WhatsApp, Facebook Messenger, Gmail, and iMessage.

Today, Signal is revealing something about what it takes to pull that off—and it’s not cheap. For the first time, the Signal Foundation that runs the app has published a full breakdown of Signal’s operating costs: around $40 million this year, projected to hit $50 million by 2025.

Signal’s president, Meredith Whittaker, says her decision to publish the detailed cost numbers in a blog post for the first time—going well beyond the IRS disclosures legally required of nonprofits—was more than just as a frank appeal for year-end donations. By revealing the price of operating a modern communications service, she says, she wanted to call attention to how competitors pay these same expenses: either by profiting directly from monetizing users’ data or, she argues, by locking users into networks that very often operate with that same corporate surveillance business model.

“By being honest about these costs ourselves, we believe that helps provide a view of the engine of the tech industry, the surveillance business model, that is not always apparent to people,” Whittaker tells WIRED. Running a service like Signal—or WhatsApp or Gmail or Telegram—is, she says, “surprisingly expensive. You may not know that, and there’s a good reason you don’t know that, and it’s because it’s not something that companies who pay those expenses via surveillance want you to know.”

Signal pays $14 million a year in infrastructure costs, for instance, including the price of servers, bandwidth, and storage. It uses about 20 petabytes per year of bandwidth, or 20 million gigabytes, to enable voice and video calling alone, which comes to $1.7 million a year. The biggest chunk of those infrastructure costs, fully $6 million annually, goes to telecom firms to pay for the SMS text messages Signal uses to send registration codes to verify new Signal accounts’ phone numbers. That cost has gone up, Signal says, as telecom firms charge more for those text messages in an effort to offset the shrinking use of SMS in favor of cheaper services like Signal and WhatsApp worldwide.

Another $19 million a year or so out of Signal’s budget pays for its staff. Signal now employs about 50 people, a far larger team than a few years ago. In 2016, Signal had just three full-time employees working in a single room in a coworking space in San Francisco. “People didn’t take vacations,” Whittaker says. “People didn’t get on planes because they didn’t want to be offline if there was an outage or something.” While that skeleton-crew era is over—Whittaker says it wasn’t sustainable for those few overworked staffers—she argues that a team of 50 people is still a tiny number compared to services with similar-sized user bases, which often have thousands of employees.

read more: https://www.wired.com/story/signal-operating-costs/

archive link: https://archive.ph/O5rzD

top 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] Netrunner@programming.dev 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

We need a lemmy version of signal

[–] steltek@lemm.ee 1 points 11 months ago

That's Matrix. End to end encrypted, decentralized, and open source.

Bridging opens it up to other services as well, like how Pidgin/Adium/Gaim used to work.

[–] xenoclast@lemmy.world 1 points 11 months ago

Of all the services asking me for a monthly fee. $5 for a non-profit private communication tool is a no brainer.

[–] Chobbes@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

There’s something kind of funny about one of the largest expenses being SMS and voice calls to verify phone numbers when one of the largest complaints about signal is the phone number requirement. I wonder how much this cost factors into them considering dropping the phone number requirement.

[–] topinambour_rex@lemmy.world 3 points 11 months ago (2 children)

If they drop the phone number requirements, you will get spam, a lot of spam. Much more than now.

[–] WallEx@feddit.de 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

Because there are no other possible verifications apart from phone numbers? Do you open a bank account with your phone number, because it's the only way?

[–] tja@sh.itjust.works 0 points 11 months ago (29 children)

What would you think would be an appropriate alternative to easily verify chat accounts that's cheaper than validating phone numbers?

[–] iopq@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago (14 children)

Use a 3d face scan, but only send the hash over the net. Can double for account recovery (when user has no email or something)

[–] scorpionix@feddit.de 0 points 11 months ago

Where would one get a 3d face scan from? For my part, I don't have a scanning rig set up anywhere.

load more comments (13 replies)
load more comments (28 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] somenonewho@feddit.de 0 points 11 months ago

I've been using signal since forever. Recently when there was a big exodus from Whatsapp because of their changed data policies was the first time I felt an impact with response time in the app etc. I immediately set up a regular donation. A few months later they came out with there cryptocurrency scheme I decided I won't be funding any cryptocurrency so I cancelled my donations. I trust signal on the technical side implicitly. But they have lost my trust in the business side :/

[–] suckmyspez@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago (1 children)

I find it amusing they don’t accept donations via their own cryptocurrency 🫠

[–] polle@feddit.de 0 points 11 months ago
[–] Mr_Blott@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

~~Can we really call a business nonprofit if they pay their CEO 5.7 million a year? Over 10% of operating costs going to one employee? That's fucking insane~~

Edit - incorrect information

[–] AAA@feddit.de 0 points 11 months ago

The most secure and privacy respecting chat app doesn't develop and run itself.

CISO and developers in that field earn into the millions, and Signal is competing with the top dogs here (MANGA). There pay is ridiculously modest.

[–] phoneymouse@lemmy.world 0 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (3 children)

WhatsApp’s initial monetization model was pretty good. Free for the first year, $1/year after that. With 400 million users, that’s a lot of money.

Signal has 50 million, but could cover their costs for $5/year per user, I’m sure, assuming not all users would pay.

load more comments (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: next ›