Signal embarrasses WhatsApp and Telegram by proving that privacy is not expensive

Signal, the messaging application focused on protecting private communication, has announced that it will require approximately 45 million euros per year to operate from 2025. This figure, although significant, pales in comparison to the budgets managed by giants such as WhatsApp or Telegram.

Since its launch in 2013, Signal has stood out for its focus on privacy. Its end-to-end encryption technology is today the de facto standard for private communication, protecting millions of conversations in applications such as WhatsApp and Google Messages.

Regarding its economic organization, Signal operates as a non-profit entity, giving it a unique structural advantage in its privacy-focused mission. Running Signal, however, is not without significant costs. The app manages a network of global servers, end-to-end encrypted data storage, and a phone number verification system to prevent spam accounts.

These services require considerable investment: on storage alone, Signal spends around €1.3 million annually; servers add another 2.9 million, while broadband costs amount to 2.8 million.

Signal does not use advertising or invasive privacy practices

Unlike other large messaging applications, Signal rejects business models based on surveillance and data analysis for advertising. This financial independence allows you to support yourself away from common invasive privacy practices in the technology industry.

Signal’s operating costs may seem high, but they are actually very low compared to other popular messaging applications such as Telegram or WhatsApp.

For example, other platforms invest much larger sums in infrastructure and technology development, although often at the cost of user privacy.

While Signal prepares to face the financial challenges of the coming years with a relatively modest budget, the application demonstrates that it is possible to offer a secure and private communication service without resorting to invasive practices. Once again: David versus Goliath.