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

  • Dark Arc@social.packetloss.gg
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    59
    ·
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    You think a verification via a video call is cheaper than SMS…?

    That’s not to mention the potential concerns that would arise around the possibility of signal storing (some portion of) the video…

    • WallEx@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      26
      ·
      1 year ago

      Nope, just saying phone numbers are far from the only option. And if telcos are price gauging you should look at the alternatives.

      • Gutless2615@ttrpg.network
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        34
        ·
        1 year ago

        No you’ve complained and insinuated there are plenty of other solutions that the world class team at Signal, literally the preminent experts in their field, chose not to use - and then offered to some truly next level terrible options.

        • WallEx@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          arrow-down
          13
          ·
          1 year ago

          Complained? I’ve merely stated a fact. And you think I’m offended? I’m trying to have a discussion you are not interested in it seems.

          How are the other options terrible? Please elaborate. That way you might actually contribute and not just call names.

      • Dark Arc@social.packetloss.gg
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        1 year ago

        Nope, just saying phone numbers are far from the only option.

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

        It’s the cheaper portion that’s the issue. There are “other options”, but they’re not cheaper and/or they have their own issues.

        I didn’t touch the email case because email addresses can be so rapidly created (even out of thin air via a catch all style inbox) there’s nothing to it.

        • WallEx@feddit.de
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          1 year ago

          But if telcos are inflating the prices that might change. But otherwise I think you’re right.