3 ms·
re HN post: I know it was 4 years ago, but regarding to patio11 first post over there, even 4yrs ago SSL was really cheap. Having your customer decide whether t
by joering2 15y ago
re HN post: I know it was 4 years ago, but regarding to patio11 first post over there, even 4yrs ago SSL was really cheap. Having your customer decide whether they want to have their data securely transferred or not over such a minimal cost-difference made me wonder what were the owners thinking? yes, I know there is additional cost involved in encrypting/decryption but 4 years ago servers were not that much more expensive as today; plus they created MVP product and started with 0 users, I assume. Nothing stopped them from adding extra $5 to every plan they sell and set it aside for a stronger server given userbase will keep growing.
Its like giving users extremely fast rocket to fly on and telling them "there is no windshield and seatbelts are extra $5".
Bottom line: I would rather have less customers and everyone with minimum security over their data, than safe extra couple bucks. IF they would ever get their data sniffed and shit would hit the fan, guess who would media blamed for it?
- mattmanser 15y agoIt used to be a 'premium' feature of 37 signals products if I recall correctly. At the time it felt like others copied them, perhaps I'm remembering incorrectly. So I'm not surprised to see that. I believe it was just a way to get people to upgrade. Views have changed in the meantime as it's dawned on everyone how bad an idea it is not to have SSL on for everyone given how negligible the cost is.