[throwawaymath]

> "This is nothing new", "I could build this myself", "you have to install something, nobody does that", etc. etc.

Note that he didn't make any of these criticisms. What he did say is that there is little information about what the company's innovation is, and to public appearances what the company is doing is not novel. He then went on compare the company to another one with an impressive team of cryptographers behind it who developed an impressive, novel solution to the problem at hand. Further, he's made this point from a position of domain expertise in the field.

Frankly I don't think raising the spectre of famous "wrong" comments about Dropbox constitutes a meaningful response to his point. He outlined a substantive critique. In order for a criticism to be a middlebrow dismissal it has to be both middlebrow and dismissive. What you're responding to isn't, and doesn't fit the template you're invoking.

[twelve40]

Note that he did make exactly that. "That's not a new or interesting technology" sounds a lot like "this is nothing new" to me - direct quotes.

This may not be the latest and greatest cryptography breakthrough, but if it helps me offload the compliance PITA and not even touch any PII ever, I'll take it - so that my small team can focus on our main business - and no, I'm not aware of any such general service outside of payments use case. If you know specific examples of token proxying SaaS services, let me know! Just like Dropbox, this solves a unique pain point for us and others like us, even though it may not sound sexy to some people.

[throwawaymath]

I think the issue here is that the company does one thing and the article is sort of grandstanding about a much larger and worthwhile problem that’s fairly different. As another commenter said, VGS seems to be solving sales and distribution with security baked on top. That’s useful, but it does not at all solve the core problems outlined in the article.

So he (and I) are not rejecting this company because the technology already exists, but because this is not a company capitalizing on that existing technology. We’re pointing out that the company - whatever it does do - does not meaningfully resolve the problems in the article, not that the problems don’t exist. This would be more like someone responding to Drew Houston and saying Dropbox doesn’t in fact work as claimed. That’s not what’s being said here.

I’m pretty sure neither of us are saying there’s no problem and to avoid this exact criticism my top level comment specifically explained why it’s a usability problem. There is a company to be made based on “not new” technology; this isn’t doing that.