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

631–640 of 965 posts

Re: Privacy is priceless, but Signal is expensive

#631

Post by tobinfricke »

gwd wrote: post #517
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/

This is kind of the number I was looking for -- "Cover your own costs: $1/year. Cover yourself and five other people: $5/year." I feel like something pointing out that the costs are around $1/year on signing up, maybe with a reminder once a year, would get most people self-funding pretty quickly.

Reminds me of ... WhatsApp :D

(Originally WhatsApp charged $1/year.)

Re: Privacy is priceless, but Signal is expensive

#632

Post by 3836293648 »

ghosty141 wrote: post #620
devit wrote: post #610

These costs seem absurd. For instance, 1.3$ million per year for storage??? Apparently, they have 40 million users, so 1 MB per user (seems reasonable for Signal) means 40TB. You can buy a 4TB SSD for $200, which means you need $2000 one-time for 1MB per user. How they get from $2000 to 1.3$ million is a mystery. As for SMS registration, if they are spending 6 million, maybe they should find some way of doing it for…

1MB per User? People share tons of pictures and videos, I‘d guess that the average is more in the 0.5 to 2GB range.

Signal doesn't save history so at any given time most users use 0 storage

Re: Privacy is priceless, but Signal is expensive

#633

Post by rbut »

devit wrote: post #626
ghosty141 wrote: post #620

Earlier quoted context omitted.

1MB per User? People share tons of pictures and videos, I‘d guess that the average is more in the 0.5 to 2GB range.

I assume they only need to store it between the time it is sent and the time it is received by the recipient. Maybe the problem is that the Signal app doesn't eagerly download messages upon notification? They should start doing that given the money issues.

If you only have the phone app then yes they are instantly downloaded and removed from their servers.

But if you have Desktop client(s) registered, then they need to hold onto those messages until you open your client(s).

That is why they have a 30 day login limit on Desktop clients. If they didn't they'd potentially have to hold onto messages forever.

https://github.com/signalapp/Signal-Desktop/issues/4730 https://community.signalusers.org/t/dont-unlink-devices-afte...

Re: Privacy is priceless, but Signal is expensive

#634

Post by devit »

resonantjacket5 wrote: post #630
wmfiv wrote: post #623

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Was this intended as satire? I honestly can't tell.

I think it's satire? Or perhaps they didn't know one can send pictures and videos on Signal and assumed it was only text.

Hmm, no?

Photos are generally Videos are probably relatively rare and if not maybe they should do something about them, like not storing overly large ones them on servers and requiring both phones to be online to transfer.

There's a 500x margin between the estimate and their costs anyway.

Re: Privacy is priceless, but Signal is expensive

#635

Post by MrDresden »

halyconWays wrote: post #361
charles_f wrote: post #279

You have to appreciate the complete transparency, gently nudging towards giving without ever begging for it. Refreshing compared to the alternative that Wikipedia is showing, with the tantrum-like emails we receive from their CEO like "LAST REMINDER" or "We've had enough" ; which they ironically send to people who gave.

Wikipedia is particularly insulting because they make enough money to cover the actual costs of running Wikipedia (the site) in days if not hours, and could operate for years without any additional donations: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32840097

Is it personally insulting to you that a completely free high quality services sometimes ask if you want to donate what ever small amount you'd like?

You'll be proper mad when you realize how much money that other company, whom you regularly pay for access to their services, has in the bank.

Re: Privacy is priceless, but Signal is expensive

#638

Post by Obscurity4340 »

GabeIsko wrote: post #295
charles_f wrote: post #279

You have to appreciate the complete transparency, gently nudging towards giving without ever begging for it. Refreshing compared to the alternative that Wikipedia is showing, with the tantrum-like emails we receive from their CEO like "LAST REMINDER" or "We've had enough" ; which they ironically send to people who gave.

Those are just non-profit fundraiser consulting tactics. Don't take them personally, just ignore them. The reason they exist is that Wikipedia has too much money, so they spend some on consultants who say they can raise more. It's weird, but that's how the world works. I would much prefer the Wikipedia endowment model of non-profit orgs. They have a standard operating procedure with a predictable budget, and endowmen…

So...is Wikipedia at the level where they can invest to ensure they're sustained indefinitely?

Re: Privacy is priceless, but Signal is expensive

#639

Post by squeaky-clean »

MrDresden wrote: post #635
halyconWays wrote: post #361

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wikipedia is particularly insulting because they make enough money to cover the actual costs of running Wikipedia (the site) in days if not hours, and could operate for years without any additional donations: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32840097

Is it personally insulting to you that a completely free high quality services sometimes ask if you want to donate what ever small amount you'd like? You'll be proper mad when you realize how much money that other company, whom you regularly pay for access to their services, has in the bank.

It's personally insulting that they lie and make it seem like they need the money to keep running, and that your donation will go towards helping Wikipedia itself, when they do not and it does not.

There's a difference between "donate if you appreciate this website" and "donate if you appreciate this website because we will have to shut down otherwise (not really though)"

Post reply on HN