2 ms·
I agree this isn't uncommon, but that does nothing to make it acceptable. Bad security design is unacceptable and this is sort of indicative of a large dissona
by munk-a 7y ago
I agree this isn't uncommon, but that does nothing to make it acceptable.
Bad security design is unacceptable and this is sort of indicative of a large dissonance when it comes to SV startups. "Disruption" isn't ignoring requirements - if you are able to under price your competitors because you fail to adhere to good practices (or, more importantly, regulations[1]) you're not building a lean and useful product - you've just built a half-assed competitor that can undercut prices because it is incomplete... You're selling something as a competing solution when it only does half the stuff.
There is a lot of good to be said about identifying the 90/10 value components of a problem space and discarding expensive features that would just add complexity for little value - but if those features are requirements you're just failing to actually meet the points consumers (or markets ala regulations) expect and making your profit off of deceit.
1. Looking at you Uber.
- josho 7y agoBut, the parent's point is that it is acceptable. Zoom has become a $300mm company all the while flatly lying (or being very generous in statements). What is the consequence for them? They made rapid market growth because they didn't waste constrained resources on security/privacy concerns. No consequences means their behavior is acceptable. Which means this will repeat until there is a reason that makes this behaviour not acceptable.