"While you're trying to save $20/month on your email marketing tool and $50 on cheaper coffee for the office, your competitors will be spending their time and money to acquire your customers" - How if they are wasting their money as where you are saving? Wouldn't it give you more resources to go after their customers?
You aren’t getting dumber, you’re getting wiser. You’re brain is tired of studying and starting to question the point of it all which is sapping your willpower. You brain is craving for diversification. Not all lessons are learned in a classroom, in fact some great ones can be learned in a bar. You need a new challenge in an orthogonal field to academics
I see you’re quite the nihilist when it comes to computer security. But for your information, there are a lot of people in the corporate and government world that think computer security works like a bank. Unfortunately for us, many of those people are running the show, and too wealthy to care about learning about the details; that’s our job. So ultimately this so that they can feel save at night knowing they’ve covered their ass from negligence. This is why things like NIST-171-800 exist and this tool would be helpful for mandatory practices required to do business
I don't see how that's a nihilist attitude. It's the truth. At this point in time, and since the rise of the internet, no computer system has been completely secure. Things will change for the better over time, but not if we placate the people "running the show".
I assume from your comment that you to think that "covering ass" adds value to security, it does not. Because if you, like me, judge this product as being redundant, then what value is truly added? What if a competent team of pentesters is rejected and favor of this tool? Then you made the world less secure. An organization not competent enough to run a security scanner will certainly not see the benefit of this product.
The current status in cyber security is that of safety in engineering three centuries ago: "This bridge is secure because we walked two oxen over it, and it did not collapse.".
"Our bank is secure, because no hacker has stolen our funds yet."
Not an issue to do and hence not an issue for public at large.
But apps come with plenty of their own issues which is gaining public recognition. It is early days yet though.
Personally:
- I find it odd to need an app for a service entirely reliant on off-phone data.
- I like my phone battery life. I avoid apps if I can help it. Web page links all over my home screen.
Isn't your anecdotal statement that which should be replaced by a citation, as it's an of-no-use example-of-one? Whereas what I said might not have been accompanied by a citation, but it's a general statement, easily verifiable, including with citations:
Not to mention there's no "grandmother test" as some kind of ultimate marketing gatekeeper, unless you market adult pads or something. I'm pretty sure lots of billion dollar industries fail the "grandmother test" too (youth-oriented ones, self-selectively so).
Same for the CEO of my company. Each additional app is a potential security risk they want to minimize. Web browsers they don’t seem to understand the risks as well. They think of webpages as being a potential attacker on the street that they can just avoid where as an app is a potential burglar of their home with their prized possessions
