Live data from Hacker News

Privacy is priceless, but Signal is expensive

signal.org

231–240 of 965 posts

Re: Privacy is priceless, but Signal is expensive

#231
> 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.

There is also a third alternative: Threema (https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=ch.threema.app...) is a privacy-focused messenger app that tries to cover its costs by *gasp* asking for money for the app! But of course those notoriously financially-conservative Swiss can't hold a candle to Signal, who first decided to give away their app, same as those other messenger-making companies flush with cash, and then found out that supporting all those users who download your free app actually costs money...

Re: Privacy is priceless, but Signal is expensive

#232

Some of these things raise an eyebrow and I'd like them further broken down (but in the mean time, I'm still donating): * $19 million for 50 staff - That's $338k/head on average. At face value for a nonprofit, I'd like these costs broke down as this seems excessive. There is far cheaper IT labor available outside SV. * 20 petabytes per year of bandwidth, or 20 million gigabytes, to enable voice and video calling alon…

[deleted]

Re: Privacy is priceless, but Signal is expensive

#233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What does the default Android messaging app do?

Google Messages, which is fast becoming the default Android messaging app across Android OEMs uses RCS when both participants support it and falls back to SMS when that is not the case. RCS is an open standard that any carrier/OS/messaging app can support, unlike iMessage, which is exclusive to iPhones.

That's exactly RCSs biggest problem: It requires active carrier support. (As far as I understand, Google runs the infrastructure for many international carriers at this point, but they still need to opt into that.)

Using my phone number as an identifier and authentication factor for so many things these days is bad enough; I really don't want the messaging layer itself to touch my phone provider at all.

Re: Privacy is priceless, but Signal is expensive

#234
post #231

> 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. There is also a third alternative: Threema ( https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=ch.threema.app... ) is a privacy-focused messenger app that tries to cov…

[deleted]

Re: Privacy is priceless, but Signal is expensive

#235

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's crazy, 400,000k per person. It would feel like nothing but an unfair waste of my "cheap-country" money to fuel "overpriced-county" with a donation.

But that's not salary, that's the total cost per employee. So if you factor in ~40% cost for healthcare, pension, perks, and various taxes, then the average salary is closer to $240,000 which will still a bit high, is probably less than market for the average engineer working at the company.

Per the 990, which is just salary, multiple employees at Signal are getting paid over $650k. That's way above market for the nonprofit sector for comparable positions.

Re: Privacy is priceless, but Signal is expensive

#236
post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The phone number requirement is why WhatsApp won the space over in the first place. There were loads of username+password-based services before it, but none reached the market it did. Why? An incredibly wide user funnel, singing up is frictionless. You might understand that it's a bad idea, but that makes you an outlier.

Why not support both? Let one communicate from a computer (or phone) with a username+password account, with people who use the service with phone number account. This without the mechanism Whatsapp uses, where you can use it in a web browser, but it's still linked to your phone.

Signal has an app to use it with your computer. It's a one time linkage through a QR code. As long as you connect with the app at least once every 30 days, you never have to worry about it and, unlike WhatsApp, your phone doesn't have to be online for it to work.

Re: Privacy is priceless, but Signal is expensive

#237
This was a nice, detailed read. At some point, Signal would have to move out of cloud providers at least for a few things to manage costs better.

I was happy to note this about employee compensation since paying them well is a good thing apart from their personal motivation to work on this (even at a comparatively lower pay than in other companies/projects):

> When benefits, HR services, taxes, recruiting, and salaries are included, this translates to around $19 million dollars per year.

> We are proud to pay people well. Our goal is to compensate our staff at as close to industry wages as possible within the boundaries of a nonprofit organization.

That said, I really dislike Signal for a few reasons. The first is what many people have already talked about very often — forcing to use a phone number to register. Since the SMS or call costs are quite high, Signal could adopt the iMessage approach to verification, which is having the user send an SMS to the service (this will cost the user some money depending on which country the SMS is sent to). This could be decided based on the country code so that the current SMS OTP model can coexist.

Signal is obstinately user unfriendly on a few aspects on user experience, more so on iOS/iPadOS. Firstly, it refuses to provide a data backup mechanism for iOS/iPadOS. If someone loses their devices, there is no way to restore older messages. Even setting up a new device requires the old device to be in physical proximity to transfer the data. Signal does integrate with CallKit (to act like a phone app) and with Apple’s notification services, but refuses to allow the user to backup the data with a password to encrypt it.

Secondly, I found this paragraph in this post to be disingenuous:

> Such practices are often accompanied by “growth hacking” and engagement maximization techniques that leverage dark patterns to keep people glued to feeds and notifications. While Signal is also free to use, we reject this kind of manipulation, focusing instead on creating a straightforward interpersonal communications app. We also reject business models that incentivize such practices.

Signal on iOS/iPadOS wants the user to enable notifications and to share contacts. If notifications are disallowed and if contacts upload is disallowed, it will pester every few days about it. One might think this is a silly mistake that Signal isn’t aware of. But it was reported some years ago and Signal responded that it will not fix it because it believes this is the only way. [1] Not even an option where this is a toggle for those who want no notifications or don’t want to share contacts (Signal does have a toggle for contact joining notifications).

Signal is also not that reliable in delivering messages in a timely manner compared to other apps (the GitHub repo has many repetitive issues on this topic over all these years).

Finally, since Signal has poorer UX in general, which isn’t an easy or cheap thing to handle, I use it only with less than a handful of people who I know and who use it.

I’d donate occasionally so that Signal can continue to exist, but I don’t feel like supporting it every month with all these issues, some of which look like Signal ignoring the user and UX issues completely.

Edit: Removed some hard words.

[1]: https://github.com/signalapp/Signal-iOS/issues/4590#issue-72...

Re: Privacy is priceless, but Signal is expensive

#238
post #207

I find this surprising: > As a small nonprofit organization, we cannot afford to purchase all of the physical computers that are necessary to support everyone who relies on Signal while also placing them in independent data centers around the world. Only a select few of the very largest companies globally are still capable of doing this. Signal may be “small,” but they’re spending plenty on this. Registration is expe…

[deleted]

Re: Privacy is priceless, but Signal is expensive

#239

I've loved Signal. It's been the only consistent way I've been able to send and receive high-quality pictures and videos at all. It's been the only way I've been reliably able to send texts when I'm in an area with poor reception, which is frequent. The privacy is nice and it's been simple and easy to use. I hope they stick around. Everyone likes to bash more privacy oriented companies if they aren't absolutely 100%…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN