this post was submitted on 17 Nov 2023
793 points (98.5% liked)

Technology

59605 readers
3575 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

(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] subignition@kbin.social 13 points 1 year ago (9 children)

Now I want to know more about that $6 million annually spent on SMS messages... That seems like a ridiculously unnecessary cost, wonder if some startup can wedge into the market and undercut the competition.

load more comments (9 replies)
[–] Hadriscus@lemm.ee 12 points 1 year ago (16 children)

19M a year for 50 people ? that would be 380.000/person. Surely there's an error here somewhere lol Unless we're talking rupees

[–] flamingo_pinyata@sopuli.xyz 6 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Good. People creating useful non-profit services should be paid a lot. And according to their financial reports (somebody linked in another comment) it's not biased towards executive pay.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (15 replies)
[–] unsaid0415@szmer.info 10 points 1 year ago

The ecosystem is moving? How the turntables

[–] somenonewho@feddit.de 9 points 1 year ago (5 children)

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 :/

load more comments (5 replies)
[–] Mio@feddit.nu 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (2 children)

They should make it possible for the community to help out with server resources. Relay or decrentralize it maybe.

[–] FrankTheHealer@lemmy.world 8 points 1 year ago (1 children)

There's probably a lot of pros and cons. But the big thing for Signal would be maintaining privacy and solid performance.

These things become harder to guarantee if you decentralize or rely on the community. While Matrix is doing quite well in this regard, it would take a while before Signal had all the ducks in a row to enable this.

load more comments (1 replies)
load more comments (1 replies)
[–] snownyte@kbin.social 7 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Eventually they're going to cave into having some paid model. Like all good things we once held dear, the long arm of monetary reliance shows no pity or remorse in it's wake.

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Scolding7300@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago

I have high hopes that the donation % and amount of users will grow after the interoperability implementation

[–] Evotech@lemmy.world 6 points 1 year ago (7 children)

Du the average signal staffer makes 380k?

[–] bdonvr@thelemmy.club 10 points 1 year ago

It says "pays for" not "pays to". So benefits, travel/relocation, training, etc, is included.

The average is then brought up by the higher level staff getting paid more.

So for a Mountain View CA company each staffer making ~$200k wouldn't surprise me

load more comments (6 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›