5 ms·

Can somebody explain their financial model? How are they paying for the servers and stuff. The claim "No ads. No trackers." and that they are "free for everyone

Can somebody explain their financial model? How are they paying for the servers and stuff. The claim "No ads. No trackers." and that they are "free for everyone".

tobib 6y ago
https://signal.org/donate/ https://signal.org/donate/
decrypt 6y ago
They are powered by donations [1] Brian Acton, co-founder of WhatsApp, who left Facebook post WhatsApp acquisition, infused 50M USD too. [2] I hear he lent another 50M with 0% interest, repayable by 2068. [3] [1] https://signal.org/donate https://signal.org/donate [2] https://www.wired.com/story/signal-foundation-whatsapp-brian-acton/ https://www.wired.com/story/signal-foundation-whatsapp-brian... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal_Foundation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal_Foundation
- xster 6y ago
  Take this with a grain of salt since it's not too clear how much money they got exactly from OTF, but they seem to have been partially seeded initially with the CIA spin-off Radio Free Asia money (https://pando.com/2015/03/01/internet-privacy-funded-by-spooks-a-brief-history-of-the-bbg/ https://pando.com/2015/03/01/internet-privacy-funded-by-spoo...). Since the OTF's own spin-off from RFA, it seems to have continued being non-trivially involved in regime change while funding communication initiatives like TOR and Open Whisper Systems etc (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Technology_Fund https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Technology_Fund).
  - yorwba 6y ago
    Good. Let them put their "regime change" money into generally useful infrastructure like Signal instead of propaganda for their favorite rebel group or some other narrow political goal.
    - rglullis 6y ago
      Signal runs on AWS with the excuse that if a state actor decided to block Signal by blocking IPs, they would have to block all of AWS. It all sounds fine, until we are reminded that AWS itself blocked Parler, no chance of recourse and completely within the law. With that in mind, how confident are you to think that CIA's support of Signal goes as far as they can ensure they can control the network?
      - ixfo 6y ago
        The threat model for prevention of censoring Signal was originally developed around China, Best Korea, etc. The original reasoning why WhatsApp used the same crypto/messaging format as Signal was in large part (aside from it being Good Crypto) to make it harder to selectively block TextSecure/Signal based on message content. So the threat model is now changing (if you're trying to avoid censorship by the US govt etc) and that's going to be interesting to watch unfold. Matrix is much less susceptible to this being an existential threat, of course.
      - xster 6y ago
        And since the first in the thread asked about money, which is an important question, Amazon has a 600 million dollar CIA contract before counting the billions in IC contracts this year to big tech. That's more than double what Bezos paid for the whole Washington Post to put things into perspective.
- hanniabu 6y ago
  What happens if they don't repay by 2068?
gordon_freeman 6y ago
The same way Wikipedia operates...through donations.
rch 6y ago
I kick in a few dollars a month, and recommend you do the same.
- rglullis 6y ago
  So, not really "free for everyone". TANSTAAFL. Downvoters, kindly explain what is so wrong about my statement. There are costs to run the operation, having generous benefactors writing big checks (a) do not change this, (b) makes Signal's operation dependent on the source of revenue and (c) hide these externalities long enough to hinder the development of cheaper/more efficient alternatives. IOW, "depending on donations" is not a solution. Just like Socialism, it works until we run out of other people's money.
  - deathgrips 6y ago
    Downvoted because... TANSTAAFL?
    - rglullis 6y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_ain't_no_such_thing_as_a_free_lunch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_ain't_no_such_thing_as_a...
  - strken 6y ago
    You're getting downvoted because your comment doesn't add anything to the conversation. To claim something isn't free to the user just because it has externalities is a cheap rhetorical trick that doesn't give any new information or perspective.
    - rglullis 6y ago
      Of course it does. OP asked "how do they manage to have a business". "Depend on donations" is not viable for a large-scale operation that has costs that grows with the customer base.
      - deleted 6y ago
apatters 6y ago
They're pretty unique, the Wikipedia article has a good summary under "Developers and Funding": https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal_(software) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal_(software) Initially funded by a $50M loan from the co-founder of Whatsapp. In addition to consulting contracts they have received millions in grants and donations from Mark Shuttleworth, Radio Free Asia, the Freedom of the Press Foundation and others.
sagivo 6y ago
It's a non profit. Donations are their main (only?) source right now.

Can somebody explain their financial model? How are they paying for the servers and stuff. The claim "No ads. No trackers." and that they are "free for everyone".

tobib 6y ago

https://signal.org/donate/ https://signal.org/donate/

decrypt 6y ago

They are powered by donations [1] Brian Acton, co-founder of WhatsApp, who left Facebook post WhatsApp acquisition, infused 50M USD too. [2] I hear he lent another 50M with 0% interest, repayable by 2068. [3] [1] https://signal.org/donate https://signal.org/donate [2] https://www.wired.com/story/signal-foundation-whatsapp-brian-acton/ https://www.wired.com/story/signal-foundation-whatsapp-brian... [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal_Foundation https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal_Foundation

xster 6y ago
Take this with a grain of salt since it's not too clear how much money they got exactly from OTF, but they seem to have been partially seeded initially with the CIA spin-off Radio Free Asia money (https://pando.com/2015/03/01/internet-privacy-funded-by-spooks-a-brief-history-of-the-bbg/ https://pando.com/2015/03/01/internet-privacy-funded-by-spoo...). Since the OTF's own spin-off from RFA, it seems to have continued being non-trivially involved in regime change while funding communication initiatives like TOR and Open Whisper Systems etc (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Technology_Fund https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_Technology_Fund).
- yorwba 6y ago
  Good. Let them put their "regime change" money into generally useful infrastructure like Signal instead of propaganda for their favorite rebel group or some other narrow political goal.
  - rglullis 6y ago
    Signal runs on AWS with the excuse that if a state actor decided to block Signal by blocking IPs, they would have to block all of AWS. It all sounds fine, until we are reminded that AWS itself blocked Parler, no chance of recourse and completely within the law. With that in mind, how confident are you to think that CIA's support of Signal goes as far as they can ensure they can control the network?
    - ixfo 6y ago
      The threat model for prevention of censoring Signal was originally developed around China, Best Korea, etc. The original reasoning why WhatsApp used the same crypto/messaging format as Signal was in large part (aside from it being Good Crypto) to make it harder to selectively block TextSecure/Signal based on message content. So the threat model is now changing (if you're trying to avoid censorship by the US govt etc) and that's going to be interesting to watch unfold. Matrix is much less susceptible to this being an existential threat, of course.
    - xster 6y ago
      And since the first in the thread asked about money, which is an important question, Amazon has a 600 million dollar CIA contract before counting the billions in IC contracts this year to big tech. That's more than double what Bezos paid for the whole Washington Post to put things into perspective.
hanniabu 6y ago
What happens if they don't repay by 2068?

gordon_freeman 6y ago

The same way Wikipedia operates...through donations.

rch 6y ago

I kick in a few dollars a month, and recommend you do the same.

rglullis 6y ago
So, not really "free for everyone". TANSTAAFL. Downvoters, kindly explain what is so wrong about my statement. There are costs to run the operation, having generous benefactors writing big checks (a) do not change this, (b) makes Signal's operation dependent on the source of revenue and (c) hide these externalities long enough to hinder the development of cheaper/more efficient alternatives. IOW, "depending on donations" is not a solution. Just like Socialism, it works until we run out of other people's money.
- deathgrips 6y ago
  Downvoted because... TANSTAAFL?
  - rglullis 6y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_ain't_no_such_thing_as_a_free_lunch https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/There_ain't_no_such_thing_as_a...
- strken 6y ago
  You're getting downvoted because your comment doesn't add anything to the conversation. To claim something isn't free to the user just because it has externalities is a cheap rhetorical trick that doesn't give any new information or perspective.
  - rglullis 6y ago
    Of course it does. OP asked "how do they manage to have a business". "Depend on donations" is not viable for a large-scale operation that has costs that grows with the customer base.
    - deleted 6y ago

apatters 6y ago

They're pretty unique, the Wikipedia article has a good summary under "Developers and Funding": https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal_(software) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Signal_(software) Initially funded by a $50M loan from the co-founder of Whatsapp. In addition to consulting contracts they have received millions in grants and donations from Mark Shuttleworth, Radio Free Asia, the Freedom of the Press Foundation and others.

sagivo 6y ago

It's a non profit. Donations are their main (only?) source right now.