3 ms·
It’s hilarious that internally googlers always used to poo poo vendors in private conversations but imo you’re absolutely right - samsung essentially holds the
by dilyevsky 4y ago
It’s hilarious that internally googlers always used to poo poo vendors in private conversations but imo you’re absolutely right - samsung essentially holds the whole brand afloat. Although not by choice - they tried replacing android and failed miserably
- dagmx 4y agoThey sort of succeeded though with replacing Android Wear
- aaaaaaaaata 4y agoWhich is embarrassing, because they're one of the most insecure vendors...
- nokya 4y ago"one of the most insecure vendors" The way you wrote it makes it sound like most vendors sell secure software but not Samsung, which isn't true at all: all vendors sell insecure software except very few exceptions. The fact that Samsung cannot build secure software doesn't mean they're bad at it. It means they're not better than the others, which is very different from calling then the most insecure software company. Application security in information security is what climate change is in politics: an underdog, strongly opposed, and massively misunderstood. The simple fact that you are aware that Samsung produces code, which contains many security vulnerabilities, is an indicator that it is probably doing much better than a lot of other companies ;)