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

    • EnderMB@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      56
      ·
      edit-2
      1 year ago

      Tech pay in the US.

      Not wholly relevant to the above story, but worth calling out regardless.

    • LSNLDN@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      19
      ·
      1 year ago

      But 19 million in costs for 50 staff would put everyone at roughly that wage right? Or what have I missed here

      • Jako301@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        33
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        You’ve got tax, insurance, retirement plans, trainings…

        The average wage will be around 200k. Still a lot for the average person, but not much for an experienced programmer/ sysadmin.

        • flambonkscious@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          1 year ago

          Also, what are the chances the 3 overworked stress bunnies that were in on it ‘from day 1’ are claiming a LOT more than that??

        • Kuma@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          6
          ·
          1 year ago

          I am getting scared… That is not a normal pay here for an experienced developer. Who gets over 10k a month?! Sign me up! I would say even 100k in a year is a lot for someone, 60k to 80k is a bit more normal. But we also get payed vacationdays (30 days) plus all of the payed holidays and half days, and payed sickleave (80% of your pay) and monthly pension (4-6% of the pay). But that does not cost 140k - 120k for a company, and that was low?..

          Everyone think this is normal in the us?!

          • Socsa@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            13
            ·
            1 year ago

            An experienced engineer won’t take a piss on your lawn for under 200k total comp where I am.

          • ipkpjersi
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            It depends on where you live, but yes in tech hubs in the US that’s normal pay. Of course, outside of USA you’ll see like 5x or more lower salaries. I’m happy with the money I currently make, but I’d likely make 2-3x what I currently make if I moved to USA.