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
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
Good. People creating useful non-profit services should be paid a lot. And according to their financial reports (somebody linked in another comment) it's not biased towards executive pay.
As long as it doesn't end up eventually bringing down the entire service.
It's not exclusively peer to peer, so there must be infrastructure, no?
nah they say 19m is for their almost 50 employees. 14m is infrastructure, 6m of which is for texts to confirm, apparently. Which also... seems like way too much? 6 million for text messages? Are they confirming 390 million new accounts a year? Quick google says its .79 cents a text. 2x that to receive also and... yeah... I'm pretty sure that ain't right. Like I get the 8 mil a year for data, cuz yeah it is a lot. Texts should probably be 1m assuming 50mil new accounts a year. I could see 10m for the 50 people, that is $200,000 on average. So... half what they claim seems reasonable.
Probably for renting office space, security, catering, training, employee benefits, and things like that. I'd imagine costs like that balloon up quickly.
Plus there's likely background checks for potential hires, onboarding and interviewing, these all have costs too since they have to be selective of who they hire, since that person will then be working on one of the most secure messaging platforms in the world.
Also, as for the costs of texts, a significant part of that would be the costs associated with sending push notifications. I remember a while back, when I had an iphone and used Apollo for Reddit, the developer of the app explored every option but eventually settled on a paid subscription system, just to enable push notifications for the app. There was no other way since for the users of Apollo alone, the cost of sending push notifications every time you got a reply or message was surprisingly high.
That was just on iOS, add Android to that plus Signal's clients on other platforms, I'd imagine that the bandwidth to send notifications probably costs Signal a lot since people tend to have conversation prompting multiple notifications on their device.
I could be wrong but that would be my guess as to why the costs are, what they are.
Ah the push notifications makes a lot of sense, the article said that was just for SMS messages to confirm messages and that seemed way too much, but push notifications is probably right.
And yeah, I guess I assumed most of those costs wouldn’t be labelled staff budget, but idk I’m not an accountant lol. Still that seems to be a lot for 50 people yearly.
If signal is run by 50 people, I have a pretty good hunch that the majority of them are very well paid developers and engineers, and IT…and a rather small amount of lower-paid administrative staff.
Keep in mind that they need to be able to send SMS worldwide and roaming is a thing. Especially if you have to deal prices with all the telco in the world
Are you including the office space/associated costs with employing someone as well? I was once told it costs approx 100k to have me in my seat before the cost of my salary was accounted for, not sure how much BS that was, but 100k was multiples of my salary at the time.
I mean, I could see them trying to say costs for buying land and building shit and furnishing and etc. sure, but again this is YEARLY costs, not startup costs. I do assume there is some of that included in the budget but its not listed anywhere. I mean I GUESS that could be listed under budget for staff but that seems... very disingenuous.
Things like health insurance, etc. are yearly costs though and that stuff does end up adding up. There should also be some recurring taxes that an employer has to pay per employee that aren't part of income tax withholding (i.e. doesn't show up as part of an employee's paystub).
Wages themselves are not the full cost of an employees total payroll expense, since that would also include taxes and benefits. And then you have to figure their expenditure for business equipment (work computer, phone, printer, etc), licenses for job-specific software they use, total cost of the square-footage of office space they need, etc.
You could say office space and furniture and even IT infrastructure are sunk costs but they do need to be constantly maintained and expanded upon as the company grows. Adding a person to the payroll means the company has grown. They may not need a bigger office, or more servers, until they hire a few more people, but then at that point they will need it.
If all the employees are located in the highest cost of living area in the world, it kinda makes sense.
Gotta pay those insane housing costs somehow.
Could be that that is employee headcount and not including contractors.
C*Os probably eat a la4ge portion of it. Not even breaching into VPs and Senior Managers
Well there it is, they can make savings easily afaic
Yeah, that seems shady at least, what kind of salaries are they getting?
Where I live in europe, IT people usually hace salaries between 30.000 and 80.000. And it is considered a pretty good salary.