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

Technology

59600 readers
4673 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
[–] [email protected] 16 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)
[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago (17 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

load more comments (17 replies)
[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago

The ecosystem is moving? How the turntables

[–] [email protected] 12 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (15 children)

Their leadership team made about 5 million dollars per year in 2022, with about $500K/year compensations for most of them. Some comments here suggest that those compensations have risen sharply recently.

Perhaps consider whether this is a good place to donate. And also, it's so shitty that we were conditioned to think that every service is "free" of charge. In an ideal world, Signal could fix all of these problems by firing 80% of their C-team and instituting a modest subscription fee. But then 90% of their users would just fuck off to some place that is "free" but makes much more money from selling their data.

[–] [email protected] 15 points 1 year ago

Sounds completely fine.

Remember we need competent, motivated folks top to bottom. They are certainly getting offers from other organizations to go work for them.

We also don't want them "needing" to accept bribes

[–] [email protected] 13 points 1 year ago

Here's the thing with pay: they can either pay these people or find someone who will accept less.

These employees have options. Signal is competing with other companies to hire them, so the pay is determined by that market.

As for the "free" part, yep, the consumer determines the value here, and since most people are pretty content with garbage like SMS or WhatsApp (which is monetized by your data), "free" is what Signal is competing with.

Fortunately, those of us "in the know" have the opportunity to promote a free app to help build the network effect, and we can financially contribute as part of that.

(Not criticizing, just adding perspective).

load more comments (13 replies)
[–] [email protected] 11 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (3 children)

So long as they are transparent with its funding I wouldn't mind donating whether through Patreon or other methods.

load more comments (3 replies)
[–] [email protected] 10 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)
[–] [email protected] 8 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago) (4 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 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 (3 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›