3 ms·

As you have recognized: > Plus, women are more likely to leverage recourse to law enforcement (instead of physically beating a stalker) Isn't the issue then t

As you have recognized: > Plus, women are more likely to leverage recourse to law enforcement (instead of physically beating a stalker) Isn't the issue then that your business model is competing with law enforcement, which has far greater resources and the ability to levy criminal penalties against stalkers and hackers? I'm struggling to see why a woman would want to pay for some random app versus preserving the evidence intact and presenting it to law enforcement for use in civil or criminal proceedings. The other issue is that if they do manage to come up with a successful approach, there's nothing stopping Google and Apple from integrating a similar solution into the OS, with more engineers and privileged access to the underlying system. It's an interesting idea, but I can understand the lack of VC enthusiasm.

motohagiography 5y ago
Interestingly, (imo) Apple wouldn't do it themselves because it's off brand for them. They need a 3rd party provider for anything that doesn't reinforce the brand. Similarly, MSFT could have rolled over and put every antivirus company out of business, but they don't because they can't. It's not economical for them to do it. I'd be enthusiastic about this company, and as soon as they get conversions via social channels from influencers, I'd bet on it taking off. The business model comment seems like a misunderstanding, as you absolutely want to know if there is spyware on your device, the IT guy is rifling your files, if your partner is going through your phone, or if someone picked up your device and plugged in a cable to it when you left it on your desk, or your weird tinder date sideloaded malware on your phone when you left the table. My point about law enforcement is that you don't have to build an FBI-proof product to meet the antistalker market need, and I think that's what other security companies have tried and failed.
- pseudo0 5y ago
  It took Microsoft a little while, I suspect due to lingering antitrust fears, but they have cannibalized the consumer AV market with Windows Defender. Hardly anyone I know uses, let alone pays for, a third-party AV product at home. Also, mainstream sources like the NYT's tech blog are recommending against third-party AVs. https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/blog/best-antivirus/ https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/blog/best-antivirus/ And the best defense against most of those attack vectors you mentioned is simply a decent passcode, fingerprint scanner, etc. The vast majority of modern phones don't allow apps to be installed or debugging activated while the phone is locked. Just to expand on why I think the business model isn't there, on the one side you have giants like Google and Apple that can crib your best features, and on the other snake oil apps that offer a shiny UI and very little security. To make a quality product profitable, you're stuck trying to keep ahead of the behemoths in terms of engineering, while simultaneously being undercut by competitors with near-zero R&D costs throwing money into ads and paid endorsements. The fact that AV companies with strong existing brands have had so little success in this space makes me skeptical of whether a viable market exists. I'm bullish on cybersecurity when it comes to enterprise offerings, but the consumer market largely seems like a dead end.

motohagiography 5y ago

Interestingly, (imo) Apple wouldn't do it themselves because it's off brand for them. They need a 3rd party provider for anything that doesn't reinforce the brand. Similarly, MSFT could have rolled over and put every antivirus company out of business, but they don't because they can't. It's not economical for them to do it. I'd be enthusiastic about this company, and as soon as they get conversions via social channels from influencers, I'd bet on it taking off. The business model comment seems like a misunderstanding, as you absolutely want to know if there is spyware on your device, the IT guy is rifling your files, if your partner is going through your phone, or if someone picked up your device and plugged in a cable to it when you left it on your desk, or your weird tinder date sideloaded malware on your phone when you left the table. My point about law enforcement is that you don't have to build an FBI-proof product to meet the antistalker market need, and I think that's what other security companies have tried and failed.

pseudo0 5y ago
It took Microsoft a little while, I suspect due to lingering antitrust fears, but they have cannibalized the consumer AV market with Windows Defender. Hardly anyone I know uses, let alone pays for, a third-party AV product at home. Also, mainstream sources like the NYT's tech blog are recommending against third-party AVs. https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/blog/best-antivirus/ https://www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/blog/best-antivirus/ And the best defense against most of those attack vectors you mentioned is simply a decent passcode, fingerprint scanner, etc. The vast majority of modern phones don't allow apps to be installed or debugging activated while the phone is locked. Just to expand on why I think the business model isn't there, on the one side you have giants like Google and Apple that can crib your best features, and on the other snake oil apps that offer a shiny UI and very little security. To make a quality product profitable, you're stuck trying to keep ahead of the behemoths in terms of engineering, while simultaneously being undercut by competitors with near-zero R&D costs throwing money into ads and paid endorsements. The fact that AV companies with strong existing brands have had so little success in this space makes me skeptical of whether a viable market exists. I'm bullish on cybersecurity when it comes to enterprise offerings, but the consumer market largely seems like a dead end.