Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Privacy is priceless, but Signal is expensive

signal.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

441–450 of 965 posts

Re: Privacy is priceless, but Signal is expensive

#441

Post by peanut-walrus »

toast0 wrote: post #381
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they very early on established direct-connection infrastructure for sending SMS, meaning that they have a marginal cost of literally $0.00/message in most markets. I am very, very interested to understand how that works, because without more detail or sources I'm calling bullshit. I definitely understand how Twitter could have greatly reduced their per-message fee with telecom providers, but at the end of the day T…

Carriers that run their own messaging infrastructure can allow for direct connections from 3rd parties, and set the price per message to whatever they want, including zero. For something like Twitter where you could post by SMS, the balance of traffic might have been such that giving Twitter free outbound SMS was balanced by the charges incurred by customers sending to Twitter's shortcode. Or it might just be balance…

If you require global connectivity, managing hundreds of carrier APIs, contracts, etc seems like major overhead. Also, there are companies whose only purpose for existing is providing messaging, like Twilio, are they just...not doing this or do the carriers just not play ball? In that case, why would the carriers agree to sell to you at a discount?

Re: Privacy is priceless, but Signal is expensive

#442

Post by [deleted] »

V__ wrote: post #36

Signal had 40 million active users in 2021 [1]. With 14 million in infra cost, that comes to .35 per user/year. Total expenses are about 33 million, so about .825 per user/year. All in all that seems very reasonable. [1] https://www.businessofapps.com/data/signal-statistics/

[deleted]

Re: Privacy is priceless, but Signal is expensive

#443

Post by NoMoreNicksLeft »

RunSet wrote: post #358
NoMoreNicksLeft wrote: post #154

I always wonder why no one ever mentions Session. Is there some defect in its tech, or is it just not a comparable product?

It's an uphill battle. I asked to recommend Session on the privacy subreddit- which the moderators denied because Session lacks a well-documented endorsement from a public figure regarded as an authority with regard to privacy. That is a non-starter specifically in the context of vetting privacy-enabling software. Anyone got a list of privacy celebrities with enough spare time to vet reddit content?

It really comes down to that? Wow.

Thanks for answering though, it really bugged me, and I couldn't find anything on it.

Re: Privacy is priceless, but Signal is expensive

#444

Post by [deleted] »

nwellinghoff wrote: post #282

Wish they provided some numbers of actual messages, type etc. per day. Seems like a good game plan would be. 1) Get off the major cloud providers that charge insane egress fees. 2) Remove SMS verification. A simple solution might be the app gives you a code and then you dial in to them and punch in the code to them. Like a reverse voice based authentication. 3) Remove voice and video calling for non donating users. 3…

[deleted]

Re: Privacy is priceless, but Signal is expensive

#445

Post by rany_ »

lencastre wrote: post #378
V__ wrote: post #36

Signal had 40 million active users in 2021 [1]. With 14 million in infra cost, that comes to .35 per user/year. Total expenses are about 33 million, so about .825 per user/year. All in all that seems very reasonable. [1] https://www.businessofapps.com/data/signal-statistics/

It’s beginning to sound like the 1 EUR/year that at some point WhatsApp wanted to charge and it seemed reasonable to me at the time. Signal is even better and even more so justified.

They used to "require" a subscription of 1$/year but it was not enforced. If you missed the deadline, nothing happened. It was basically the WinRAR model but for an online service.

Re: Privacy is priceless, but Signal is expensive

#446

Post by Melting_Harps »

mplanchard wrote: post #307
akprasad wrote: post #255

I just donated $10 to Signal. Here's how to do so on iPhone in less than a minute: 1. Open Signal and click on your user icon in the upper left. 2. Go to "Settings" --> "Donate to Signal". 3. Click "Donate", select your donation options, and pay with Apple Pay.

I’ve got a recurring donation of $5/mo I set up ages ago

> I’ve got a recurring donation of $5/mo I set up ages ago

Thanks for that, I did a one off 300 euro donation back in '21 during the bubble market; Meredith has been doing the rounds [0] and she hits on lots of good points, and even went to the UK over their now failed bill during the Summer.

0: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ykfABSBeAVo

Re: Privacy is priceless, but Signal is expensive

#447

Post by [deleted] »

jzb wrote: post #382

I'll probably donate, but I find it annoying that Signal only offers Linux packages for Debian-based distros. I've had headaches with the Flatpak. I would think that the Linux desktop audience - while not huge - would be the most interested in Signal. That is, might not be a lot of Linux users but percentage-wise I'd bet more Linux users are interested in Signal than macOS or Windows users. Even an AppImage would be…

[deleted]

Re: Privacy is priceless, but Signal is expensive

#448

Post by [deleted] »

greyface- wrote: post #317

An entirely peer-to-peer instant messaging network, which doesn't rely on a central authority, is technically possible. A $50M/yr burn rate to implement that authority as an act of charity is simply unsustainable. Why do we insist on continuing down this path? Attempts to decentralize or federate Signal are met with hostility. The Signal Foundation tells us that this is the only possible way; "the ecosystem is moving…

[deleted]

Re: Privacy is priceless, but Signal is expensive

#449

Post by raesene9 »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #298
raesene9 wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Whilst competitive salaries are important, it's fair to say that, outside of the US, you can get good people for a lot less than $338k/year. To give one example of a (not that cheap) market, outside of London average developer salaries are probably under $50k in the UK. Even accounting for additional costs like taxation and equipment, that's likely to be under $100k fully loaded.

> outside of London average developer salaries are probably under $50k in the UK For top-notch security developers, I call bullshit. Signal would be worthless if it started offshoring development to nickel and dime.

I said Average for a reason :D I didn't say you can get "top-notch" security developers for that.

I don't think there's industry numbers for that set of people in the UK, as it's not a big enough set. However I'd be surprised if they were 150K plus though, that's a very rare salary in the UK.

Also there are cheaper countries than the UK who have great devs.

Re: Privacy is priceless, but Signal is expensive

#450

Post by greyface- »

contact9879 wrote: post #392
greyface- wrote: post #317

An entirely peer-to-peer instant messaging network, which doesn't rely on a central authority, is technically possible. A $50M/yr burn rate to implement that authority as an act of charity is simply unsustainable. Why do we insist on continuing down this path? Attempts to decentralize or federate Signal are met with hostility. The Signal Foundation tells us that this is the only possible way; "the ecosystem is moving…

Because peer-to-peer messaging is not a solved issue. People want asynchronous conversations and not have to expose their location to everyone they talk to. There are other platforms that are working on federated e2ee services (it's not easy. matrix was completely broken a year ago).

I'm not suggesting that it's a solved problem, but it's a solvable problem, and the Signal Foundation should be using its (significant) resources to solve it, rather than slowly bleeding them out to AWS, GCP, Azure, and Twilio. Unfortunately, solving that problem also significantly reduces the scope of the Foundation, so there's little incentive.
Post reply on HN