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

    • CrinterScaked@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      ·
      8 months ago

      If you take out the employer-side taxes and cost of benefits, maybe. A fair number of their employees must be software engineers, and that much compensation isn’t unreasonable for expert software engineers.

    • bdonvr@thelemmy.club
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      ·
      8 months 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

    • PlutoniumAcid@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      ·
      8 months ago

      Yeah that struck me too. 20 million divided by 50 employees is 400 000 each. That is a LOT of money. Even half that (twice the employees, or half the cost) would be a lot.

      • oce 🐆@jlai.lu
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        12
        ·
        8 months ago

        I don’t know what’s the ratio in the USA but you may divide it by close to 2 to get the employee pay considering all kind of salary taxes. Then imagine the cost of San Francisco engineers able to build a global app used by a hundred million users. It doesn’t sound crazy.

      • redcalcium@lemmy.institute
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        Signal’s CEO salary is $5.7M, not sure about the other execs salary, but we probably can speculate that the execs compensation is half of total salary expense, so those 50 rank and file employees probably cost 200k in salary and benefits instead of 400k.