Slashdot Mirror
Bad Security Driving Out the Good
Bruce Schneier has up at Wired a typically thoughtful piece on how, in the security market as in others, the lemons are winning out over the good products. Schneier harks back to "The Market For Lemons," the 1970s work of economist George Akerlof, to explain why the market's invisible hand pushes most of the best products into the abyss: "With so many mediocre security products on the market, and the difficulty of coming up with a strong quality signal, vendors don't have strong incentives to invest in developing good products. And the vendors that do tend to die a quiet and lonely death."
Marketing and persuasion always wins out in the end. How many tech guys have tried to convince a boss that whatever solution they are going with is not in the interest of the company. Even if you make an objective flow-chart/business impact plan.. their mind is made up. Dick from marketing has personality-brainwashed him. He took him to lunch, he couldn't possibly be like the other salesmen.. nice chap.
"I am not bound to please thee with my answers" [William Shakespeare]
It really boils down to marketing, IMHO. And laziness. The average person doesn't want to have to learn about something and investigate its merits. By and large they're much happier being told that Item A does XYZ, while Item B does XYZ *and* W, all while being easier to use than Item A. Despite W being a useless feature, and the "easier to use" claim being baseless, Item B will win out due to how it's been marketed.
This guy's the limit!
As TFA states, it's easy for someone to create a security product which they themselves cannot break. Hiring external testers can be a huge expense if done right, and when companies rely more on hype than on technical brilliance, they end up getting screwed. SecuStick is rare only in that its crappy security made headlines.
Well... that explains why Vista is selling.
(Yeah I know... flamebait. But it had to be said.)
Socrates in the 400s BC was already complaining about how sophistry is winning over logic and reason. The world will never change.
There is an invisible line between being good (as in above average) and good enough (as in gets the job done).
All things equal, people will choose good over good enough, however all things are not equal. Better products tend to cost more, better service costs more. Cheap products that do mostly marginal job wins the price war and hence wins the market.
There are always going to be niche markets that serve people who KNOW quality and service, most people don't care enough. They'll just choose whatever is cheapest at the moment from brands that they know (even if cheap), as long (and this is key) the quality is "good enough".
Which is why if I were making a product line, I'd make two different and distinct products, one "good enough" and one with better higher quality/service. I'd even go so far as to make sure by brand distinction that people would knwo "cheap, but good enough" from "good" by using strong branding.
Take McDonalds vs any higher quality hamburger shop (Red Robin, White Castle etc), which one is "good enough" vs good. Why don't more people choose the better burger?? It is because McDonalds is "good enough". And in spite of everyone complaining about McDonalds employee quality of service, it is "good enough" to keep going back.
Agent K: A *person* is smart. People are dumb, stupid, panicky animals, and you know it.
I feel there is a basic problem when we consider computer security for the average user (not people who have professional or legal obligations to protect their data). There are now two types of average users, those who are so dumb they don't have any security at all (no firewall, no anti-virus, open Wi-Fi etc). These people need to be educated. On the other hand, there is an increasing population of average users who have been turned into paranoid security freaks.
Most people have no need of a USB key that self-destructs. They don't need to encrypt their hard drives, on which they probably store nothing more sensitive than their really bad first novel draft. They don't need a 26 character Hex password on their operating system. I suspect that a much higher percentage of these normal people lose their data because they can't remember the password to access the data than lose it due to not having tight enough encryption protection. They are out there having to reformat their drive because they can't remember their login password, or having their laptop explode because they installed the new "Explodo-Crypt" device and then accidently had the caps lock key on when they tried to access it.
People need to get effective security solutions for their REALISTIC needs.
Life needs more saving throws.
Endless promotion, Endless recruitment, Constant attack on competition.
Persuasive spokespersons, Constant reminders of what you WONT get if you dont buy, and buy NOW.
An answer to every question or challenge about your product, and when that wont work, promote FAITH in the organization, and patience in the reciept of what you are really wanted.
Unashamed, unabashed belief in your product as THE ONLY real solution.
This is Evangelism, and it works better than anything else, regardless of whether you really have the goods or not.
The standard thinking is that, because of the existence of market failures such as externalities, natural monopolies, and imbalance of information (the issue at hand), the free market paradoxically needs some regulation in order to remain free.
Libertarians are the group most vehemently against this concept, but I have never heard a single one of them coherently explain how exactly the free market will remain free without regulation. Their arguments seem to boil down to "LALALALA I can't hear you! There's no such thing as market failure, the market is infallible!"
If you have a better argument as to why market failures aren't a problem, or a better solution than regulation if you think they are, I'd love to hear it.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
That's true. I think the solution is that R&D managers have to be tougher. I know it's rare, but you really need an individual who is willing to stand up to marketing, and just say, you know: "No, actually we don't have that product." If the marketing person who sold the non-existent product can be made to lose face, there would be some motivation for them to not do it again, and to really _learn_ what the products are and what they do instead of just memorizing the buzzwords.
The problem, essentially, is a lack of liability on the part of the sales person. They do this all the time, selling "features" that are just speculative... if they were made to be more careful, it wouldn't happen and the whole R&D department would run more smoothly. Salespeople should be forced to sell products that DO exist. Information flow from R&D to marketing needs to be more open: *these* are the products we actually *have*, go sell them.
If salespeople were made to look dumb in front of their clients when they make a mistake, they wouldn't make mistakes. The problem currently is that when they DO make mistakes, it's R&D that has to pay, not them. You need an R&D manager who is willing to tell them they fucked up, instead of "okay, well I _guess_ we could do that, if we bump our schedule and stop working on this other project for a while.."
Anyways, don't tell me, this is idealistic and impossible.
Does anyone have an R&D manager who stands up to marketing like this?
My grandmother bought a Maytag washer in the 1950's. In 2003, the knob on the front broke. 50 years later, it still washed clothes fine, but there were vice grips clamped to the stem where the knob was. Maytag doesn't make that part any more, so she replaced it with a new top-of-the-line Maytag. It broke last year. My parents bought a Maytag in 1972. It's still working fine. From what I've read about the new ones, they're complete crap. What's more, there isn't a washing machine on the market that could last 30 years, let alone 50 years. They aren't made to last that long.
It's because there's no financial incentive for a company to make good washing machines any more. The ones out there are rushed to market, made of inferior quality parts and put together poorly. If I have to buy a new one in 5 years, even better for the company that makes it. They get to sell me another one.
In the free-market economy, if I decided to make a 50 year washing machine, I'd have to compete with companies that are established in the market. My washer would necessarily be more expensive than a GE or Whirlpool, and nobody's ever heard of my company. On the off-chance some people buy it, realize that it's great and it gets a good reputation, I'm still faced with the fact that once everyone in the world has a 50 year washer, I'm out of customers until 2057. Now what?
I used Washing Machines as an example here, but it's true of nearly every consumer device out there. I'm not sure what the solution is, but I don't see it getting better any time soon.
-Arthur
Cave ne ante ullas catapultas ambules
Very close to how the stock market works.
Twinstiq, game news
In other words: "La la la la. I'm not hearing you". We've already saw how the free market behaves, and didn't like it. The deployed solution was regulation, and that made the situation better, but created a lot of problems itself. Can you put any other alternative on the table?
And imperfect information IS a problem. You enter a deal if you THINK you'll be better after than before it. What you think will happen doesn't have to resemble what will really happen, they just are the same thing if you have perfect information.
Rethinking email