Live data from Hacker News

Privacy is priceless, but Signal is expensive

signal.org

211–220 of 965 posts

Re: Privacy is priceless, but Signal is expensive

#211
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/

I wonder how many people paid the $5 for WhatsApp back in the day. It gave you nothing but you were able to do it. I think I did.

Re: Privacy is priceless, but Signal is expensive

#212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> stubbornly use iMessange. Personally, I prefer it over downloading yet another client, dealing with additional credentials, wondering about who can access my messages, and so on and so forth… And all that just to message the handful of people that I know who use .

If only someone would release a universal protocol that the app's native messaging apps could utilize to eliminate the need for these 3rd party messaging apps. Oh, right, it's called RCS and Apple refuses to support it.

> only someone would release a universal protocol

Nobody wants this. Universal access means universal access for spammers. iMessage won over SMS because of cost and spam filtering.

Re: Privacy is priceless, but Signal is expensive

#213

Did I read that right $19m people cost for 50 people.

Would be interesting to know exec salaries, the latest nonprofit disclosure I could find was from 2019

Form 990 from Dec 2021: https://projects.propublica.org/nonprofits/organizations/824...

Re: Privacy is priceless, but Signal is expensive

#214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Messages inflexible reliance on SMS for communication to non-Apple devices is definitely an Apple issue, in my opinion. Apple has made it clear that they continue to default to SMS for non-iPhone communication solely because it's unpleasant for everyone involved.

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.

Re: Privacy is priceless, but Signal is expensive

#215
post #123

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…

- 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. You get what you pay for, though. $338k/year seems like a reasonable salary for people working on something as privacy critical as Signal – just because you're working for a nonprofit doesn't mean you have to work for less competitive wages.

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.

Re: Privacy is priceless, but Signal is expensive

#217
post #9
post #2

> 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.

I really wonder why it’s so expensive to run. I always hear things about scaling but I used to run a top 500 alexia website and it was just a php app running on a mutualized offer for $5/month. Lots of manual caching though but still. My wild guess is that either the stack is not really optimal (last I heard it was java) or they do other costly things at scale (sgx?)

Java is likely the most optimized part of the stack.

Many startups move up to the jam when there is little else that has optimized performance and efficiency like the jvm for 20-30 years.

Of courses this is a moot conversation if you’ve never used Java at scale. Apple and others are Java houses.

Re: Privacy is priceless, but Signal is expensive

#218
post #2

> 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.

Funny, because that's the reason I can't use Signal - I don't have a phone number.

In case one isn't aware, you can get a $1/month throwaway phone number from Twilio for that purpose.

Re: Privacy is priceless, but Signal is expensive

#219
post #21

Signal 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…

I don't understand the concern. Signal has never been about anonymity. If you need to be anonymous, use a different tool. I like the fact that a phone number provides an additional verification that the person I am chatting with is who they say they are. As far as risk associated with having your phone number leaked to bad actors, that ship sailed years ago. I guarantee your number has been leaked a thousand other ways starting with by your phone provider.
Post reply on HN