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

You are viewing a single thread.
View all comments View context
26 points

Video call is expensive, and frankly, if I’m gonna sign up at a private service, I’m not going to make a damn video call.

Email is not enough to go against spam. Email addresses are basically an Infinite Ressource.

Other verified factors are nothing concrete. Sure we could all use security hardware keys, but what’s the chances that my mom has one?

permalink
report
parent
reply
-21 points

So you do think that phone numbers are the only way to verify the person? This is just stupid. There are enough, like IDs or stuff like that. If you don’t want that, that’s a totally different story.

permalink
report
parent
reply
14 points
*

Jesus Christ you Linux people never learn… It’s 👏 about 👏 ease of 👏 use.

If they wanted it to be a pain in the ass and for nobody to use they could put on a ui on top of pgp and call it a day.

permalink
report
parent
reply

This comment chain is sending me lol

How the hell this guy doesn’t understand how effective phone verification is when it comes to combating spam/bots?

permalink
report
parent
reply
4 points

How does that have anything to do with Linux? It’s about phone verification as the supposed only option.

Does Microsoft need your phone to validate your existence?

How does anyone think, that there are no alternatives?

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

There was no need to generalize Linux people. This discussion has nothing to do with Linux.

permalink
report
parent
reply
3 points

It’s a bad problem no? Combatting “spam” Accounts while balancing privacy.

Personally, I don’t want to give them any more information than is really necessary.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point

It’s not easy. And yeah, me too.

permalink
report
parent
reply
-2 points

Other verified factors are nothing concrete. Sure we could all use security hardware keys, but what’s the chances that my mom has one?

PKI doesn’t require hardware keys

permalink
report
parent
reply
2 points

True, but it’s not exactly User friendly too, right? If not, tell me. I’ll be happy.

permalink
report
parent
reply
1 point
*

If you want user-friendly WebAuthn - firefox does it for you. If you want pgp/gpg, then just install pgp/gpg client of your choice.

If you want encrypt emails, Thunderbird should have built-in encryption support.

permalink
report
parent
reply

Technology

!technology@lemmy.world

Create post

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


Community stats

  • 16K

    Monthly active users

  • 12K

    Posts

  • 551K

    Comments