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
I don't know why developers are making more than the president of the company here, but that's nice to see.
Usually the person setting the wages is setting their own wage higher than the rest.
It's also wild to me that some developers are making nearly half a million a year. I can't even crack 100k in my local currency (about $75k/yr USD) and my job is to run the infrastructure. If I don't do my job, the company goes offline and all that fancy programming amounts for nothing.
US tech wages are just nuts. In the UK I'm basically maxed out for a non-London based software dev at about £70k (~$87k). Meanwhile I have a friend who has managed to land a job with a London based US tech firm on about £120k (~$150k) which is massive for here but reading this is still a long way off what is possible.
You think wages are high here but forget that the USA has no healthcare, no mental healthcare, no social safety networks for if you lose your job, and suffers from overpriced food+housing just like everyone else.
You also get nickle and dime'd for literally everything, including having to tip if you eat out, tip to ride in an Uber, have food delivery, or exist. Drivers licenses cost money. Your birth certificate does. Your car insurance costs. If you can even afford an overpriced car even used.
And even if you get get healthcare through your job, it still sucks. You still pay "co pays" and "deductibles" just to receive care. If you get care at all that is - if the insurance company "decides" to cover your scan.
And you still owe whatever percentage after that insurance doesn't cover. Say your important surgery is $100k in costs (yes they cost that much here often). Even with decent insurance you're still owing thousands afterwards, more than likely depending on the insurance plan.
Forget getting an ambulance for emergencies. Even if your insurance covers it, it may be "out of the insurance network" and therefore not covered, but how could you know that? You're unconscious. And you better tell your body not to get cancer either or into a serious accident, because that can run your medical bills into the millions.
The USA has no decent vacation time, has no required maternity leave or medical leave. You will eat your own childcare costs into the thousands, and some people's partners opt to stay home rather than work to absorb those.
I live in a country with Universal healthcare coverage (Canada) and we pay for our healthcare with income taxes and goods and services tax; so I fail to see why this should matter.
The key difference is a single payer system. We the people (represented by the government) can basically set the prices of our own healthcare procedures to a figure that is appropriate for how much each person helping to perform the procedure costs for their time and effort in the process, the costs of running the equipment, and some for the wear/tear/maintenance on that equipment. Whatever is left over goes towards replacing the machine at its end of life.
In the USA, hospitals are run as for-profit businesses, so the extra cost (usually 100% or more profit per procedure, or whatever they can get away with charging) is added on for the profit margin of the hospital, and the insurance companies and whatnot is also run as for-profit, jacking up prices even more.
It's not that citizens of the US are paying for these procedures themselves that makes it expensive; Everyone pays for medical in some way, shape or form, just the USA seems to be okay with extorting its own citizens for profit in the process of helping them. It's a toxic system that causes people to be forced into extreme poverty when they're too poor to pay for insurance; which is insane to me, since you're effectively beating the poors until they're homeless and destitute then blaming them for their own homelessness and shunning them for being homeless when all they wanted to do was not be sick/injured.
The measure of a society is how it treats its weakest members.
this i worked in an american company and many people move to europe and accept half the salary because its still better financially speaking.