> Storage: $1.3 million dollars per year. > Servers: $2.9 million dollars per year. > Registration Fees: $6 million dollars per year. > Total Bandwidth: $2.8 million dollars per year. > Additional Services: $700,000 dollars per year. Signal pays more for delivering verification SMS during sign-up, than for all other infrastructure (except traffic) combined. Wow, that sounds excessive.
> we can rent server infrastructure from a variety of providers like Amazon AWS, Google Compute Engine, Microsoft Azure Moving off cloud services to lower-cost provider like Hetzner, Vultr and DigitalOcean might provide a lot of cost savings. I also imagine they're using managed SMS services from one of these clouds, and moving off them to a combination of local SMS gateways in each country can also further reduce co…
Privacy is priceless, but Signal is expensive
161–170 of 965 posts
Re: Privacy is priceless, but Signal is expensive
#162Signal can be better, IMHO, by separating from phone number requirements. In other words, let users have secure random ids, rather than forcing each user to hand over their phone number for phone company verification. It turns out the budget shows the phone number registration problem: the costs to deal with phone number verification seem to be $6MM, which seems to be 10% of the entire budget. If Signal staff are rea…
Re: Privacy is priceless, but Signal is expensive
#163Re: Privacy is priceless, but Signal is expensive
#164Who is the active user base for signal these days? Everyone I knew who was using it dropped off after the SMS debacle, which was a shame. Edit: Wow some weird haters on HN today. I was honestly curious as an active signal user that was no longer able to use it to message people in North America and had never seen anyone using it in East Asia. Apparently this makes some other signal users very angry.
Re: Privacy is priceless, but Signal is expensive
#165So charge everyone $2 per month to use it? shrug If you're not going to show how much money you get via donations, I'm not donating. I'm not going to donate more than you actually need, for example.
Re: Privacy is priceless, but Signal is expensive
#166Did I read that right $19m people cost for 50 people.
Re: Privacy is priceless, but Signal is expensive
#167It offers a way to configure a recurring donation for whatever amount and whatever schedule you want. $100/year for instance, but as you slide the slider or enter a number, it shows you if that number leaves Signal in deficit, covered, or surplus, if all other users who are currently paying anything paid this much.
Instead of just trying to suggest an amount with no explaination of what it means, is $5 still leaving them starving? is $5 5x more generous than needed? You still get to use it for free. But if you are of a mind to be one of the ones chipping in to keep it alive, you see exactly what is the right amount.
When 10k people are paying for 10m other people, that "covered" amount may be pretty high, apparently 5x what the average donater is currently paying. (article says it's 20% of total)
But with that little bit of non-repulsive non-abusive game theory, just honest information but presented in an immediate way, a lot of those other 10m users would start to chip in, and the covered amount would come down. Some users will say, well, I can swallow 5x what I was paying, and others can just leave their donation level in the red. But I think a lot more people would go from 0 to a few bucks if they could see exactly what it means and know that it wasn't a waste.
Maybe the donate function could even have a setting track the current covered value automatically so that your bill automatically comes down as other people start adding to the pool.
Also have it display the 3% or more transaction fee overhead going to the debit card and other payment processors, to show right there graphically how much you're wasting by paying a small amount monthly vs a large amount yearly. Everyone always hides that but I say show it prominently.
Re: Privacy is priceless, but Signal is expensive
#168Earlier quoted context omitted.
To clarify - iMessage does not use SMS if you're going from Apple to Apple device and both devices have data/wifi available. iMessage refuses to support messaging to Android clients and defaults to SMS for these messages. I've got an Android phone so all iMessage transmissions come across as SMS (or MMS).
Ah, I see what you mean. That's not what I'd call iMessage though, that's just SMS: The iOS application is called "Messages"; iMessage is the over-the-top Apple-exclusive messaging service.
Re: Privacy is priceless, but Signal is expensive
#169Earlier quoted context omitted.
A few employees and their compensation are listed on their Form 990, page 7. Sidenote: did "Moxie" legally change his name from Matthew Rosenfeld? https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/824...
They have devs and support engineers earning 700k, more than the CTO?
Re: Privacy is priceless, but Signal is expensive
#170So charge everyone $2 per month to use it? shrug If you're not going to show how much money you get via donations, I'm not donating. I'm not going to donate more than you actually need, for example.