Andre C Messa

This is an idea that never even crossed my mind- that wireless enabled security systems are more vulnerable. I know that parts of our system are wireless enabled, and I think that this shows how even though our society is constantly moving towards making things easier, quicker, faster, etc. – it’s not necessarily getting safer. It shows an interesting tradeoff between convenience and safety that is a little frightening honestly.

As homes become more “connected,” I agree that they definitely need to have more security. Unless we can make these security systems completely secure, then, as your security manager said, they can end up just being counterintuitive. All it takes is for one hacker to know how to disable a security system, and he/she will have access to your home.

For the time being, I don’t think enough homes incorporate these technologies yet to make it much of a threat yet. The logic is similar to why there is the false notion of Macs not getting any viruses — there just aren’t enough people using them to justify hacking them. However, as more and more incorporate wireless technology like your parents had installed (which will no doubt the case), then the security threat will continue to increase.

I was unaware of the Box as described in the article, but I’m glad to learn of its existence. Hopefully they will be able to make it 100% functional in the near future. No matter how effective it may be, however, I’m afraid that hackers will always be one step ahead. They’ll always find a way.

This is interesting, and I’m surprised Sony is pursuing a move such as this. After reading the WSJ article, I was confused as to why someone would want this over a traditional cable subscription or DVR box (the two markets I see them trying to disrupt, to answer your question). One could argue that its simplified programming lineup could appeal to overshot consumers who don’t need the hundreds of channels offered by cable giants, but the high price point takes away the allure of investing in this alternative. Besides minor benefits such as a better UI (user interface) that caters to shows instead of channels, the only true benefit I see to Vue in its current state is its “DVR in the cloud” service, which I found to be innovative since it removes the physical storage barrier.

There is potential for Vue to become more differentiated in the future through software updates, since it is internet enabled, but in its current state I fail to see it disrupting either the cable TV or DVR industry. If anything, it’s a nice alternative for gamers or media buffs who already own a PlayStation 3 or 4 and want to add Vue to their entertainment center repertoire. As the owner of a PS3, and with Philadelphia being one of the 3 cities it’s rolled out in so far, I wish there was a free trial for me to test the service for a true evaluation.

1. I think 5 million is the right number for them to manufacture just because this product is not innovative. They are currently playing catch up to a variety of vendors such as Samsung, LG, and Motorola. This is the first real product that Apple has come up with after Steve Jobs’ death so they are being cautious.

2. With this product? No, this is a safe bet for them based on their brand power.

3. Of course. Apple did not become the juggernaut that it is without performing due diligence.

4. Apple will be fine whether this product succeeds or fails. This is not a product that Apple has bet the bank on.

1. I think that Apple’s strategic production forecasting “plan of record” needs a lot of fine tuning since it tends to be very inaccurate. If Apple’s strategic production forecasting “plan of record” were great, then there wouldn’t be a lot of instances of where Apple has to adjust its plan to properly meet demand. The fact that Apple adjusts its “plan of record” more often and quickly than any other consumer-electronics company keeps the company from going under.
2. I think that Apple isn’t eager to stretch beyond their current abilities because transitioning from computers to watches isn’t that great of a leap nor is the capability of the watch much more cutting-edge than the competition.
3. I do not think that Apple understands the constraints and concerns within the market place. 5 million watches is way too much for an initial run. The article talks about how in the last six months of 2014, 720,000 smartwatches that were powered by Android wear were shipped. The fact that Apple would do an initial run of 5 million watches is insane based off of data and shows that there isn’t a great understanding of constraints and concerns within the market place.
4. Apple will recover well from setbacks or failures because Apple has a lot of capital, strong brand recognition, and a lot of customer loyalty. There are some people that will only buy Apple products.

I wouldn’t say that information security is not taken seriously enough, but that businesses in general just don’t know how to properly protect themselves from hackers. For example, Target actually had a pretty good information security system in place. The problem, however, was the people who were maintaining the system. They were not properly trained, and the system was not properly utilized. If I recall, what actually happened in the Target is that a maintenance employee’s laptop had been compromised, and when he connected it to Target’s system, then the malicious code spread from there. So I think a large part of the issue is not the systems in place, but people being ignorant of how to secure their systems.

As for your question about the increase in security breaches, I think it’s more that hackers are getting smarter. Hackers are always one step ahead of the security industry; they know exactly what to look for in terms of vulnerable systems. Information security can never fully protect systems, because hackers will keep creating new viruses/malware/etc. The government knows this too, and, funnily enough, they actually try to recruit some of the hackers who are arrested once they serve their sentence.

I don’t think companies are getting lazy with IT security. I do think hackers are getting smarter because they are always looking for new ways to hack systems. Hearing about companies getting hacked affects other companies because they don’t want the same thing happening to them. The article I posted a few days ago discusses how CIOs are concerned with cyber attacks and they know its going to happen very soon, it is an ongoing cycle. There are always going to be hackers trying to break into a system and steal information. As technology is evolving and getting better and better each year the risk will be a lot higher and companies would need to hire the best people to protect security.

I think that there is a sudden increase in company security breaches because hackers are getting smarter and smarter each day. They know that there are key vulnerabilities that exist in most systems and that are hard for companies to protect and are going after them. Companies are definitely not getting lazy with IT security. Most companies have IT security teams but often times lack the skill necessary to deflect the hacker’s attack, which is why IT security is in great demand.

John, I have heard of the government recruiting hackers. Hey, it’s a great skill to harness and we definitely need them on our side, so I believe that is a great strategy.

Jess, I agree. The threat of being hacked as a company will always be there. As long as the company if proactive of it security they shouldn’t see to big of problems.

Andre, I agree as well. Plus companies have more to worry about on a day to day basis other than just security so that puts them at an extreme disadvantage against the hackers.

I think this company has a lot of potential, I actually stumbled across a video about them a few days ago and I was impressed. They’re obviously pretty young which may have contributed to them getting their IPO out so late, but I think that will help them in the long run in terms of staying innovative. I see them having a lot of success with small businesses and start ups (especially because they’re so cheap), but it takes a lot for a well established company to change. Box will have to really prove themselves in the first couple years public to grab the attention of medium to large businesses.But overall, good investment opportunity.