That would assume that security was a priority beforehand.
Google has been known to prioritize new projects over maintaining existing ones. That would generally lead to less defined security architecture as the system is less tested.
HobbitFoot
joined 2 years ago
It isn't been a hidden cost for a while. Phone companies sell the phones at full price, but consumers want the 2 year 0% APR financing.
I feel like self driving cars are going to end up being the vanguard of deciding this, and I basically see it as mirroring human liability with a high standard where gross negligence becomes criminal. If a self driving car can be proven to be safer than a sober human, it will serve the public interest to allow them to operate.
The liability wouldn't be on the development, but the deployment.
It might have a shot. It has a large auto industry already. All it needs are batteries and electric motors.
Because the ad monopoly is subsidizing the other businesses.
Breaking up Google to smaller companies but leaving the ad market as is the same just creates more Mozillas, companies technically independent but still relying on the same revenue stream.
But how do you break up Google? Their ad business is the lynchpin to their monopolies and breaking off chunks without being able to self fund is just asking for harm to the market.
Breaking off Chrome while banning paid default search status puts the browser company with the same problem as Firefox.
No one can run a search company without ads.
Cutting along business lines is just going to create smaller monopolies or dead product lines.
the tech space is very much innovate or die
Is it still? The VC funding has started drying up and every tech company has started worrying about profitability now. I think the old innovate or die mantra has played itself out.
And IBM & Motorola diminished in part because they stuck to older industries where cost became as important as innovation and didn't lower their cost.
You also have some newer mods who are controlling the narrative for profit.
I'm not putting any work stuff on by home computer. I'm not giving work admin rights to that.
Why? Amazon seems to have built an amazing system with AWS, but does it need the same amount of staff time to maintain it that it needed to develop it?
If Amazon acknowledges that it isn't going to be developing new products to the scale it did for the past decade, it probably doesn't need the headcount it had before.
The thread, like Lemmy, is filled with software engineers and IT professionals who are angry that almost all major tech companies are destaffing and want to use this as a reason that destaffing is bad.
Security likely a shit show before, especially if more successful attacks previously were of known flaws that weren't patched.