You mean faster computers that actually power incredible computing pursuits? You know, those that actually run difficult algorithms for science rather than spending most of their CPU time on GUIs and making SQL queries in run-of-the-mill business software that you're probably writing for food.
You mean recent advances in machine learning, including a wide variety of applications in computer vision and natural language processing, more or less due to increased architectural support (improved database systems, distributed computing) and better algorithms?
You mean the considerably less-wasteful Bitcoin alternatives that can actually be better than a large part of the bloated and widely inefficient banking infrastructure?
You mean the abundance of information and knowledge on the internet, coupled with ever increasing capabilities to sift through useless content, and much easier scientific dissemination and collaboration?
You mean Linux that had very specific hardware requirements, but actually gained enough commercial support to get actual drivers?
You mean the better awareness of IP issues and maturing business models that support open source software?
I'm not saying it's a good state that a lot of these businesses rely on advertising and foolish VC money, which IMO are on the decline. But let's not equate advancing technology to running businesses. Looks like somebody just couldn't catch up with the world.
A lot of the strength in cryptography is lost in areas that depend on trust. Like trusting that the vendor doesn't put a backdoor in your system, or trusting your OS doesn't break your firewall, or that any third-party CA's are actually trustworthy, or there isn't a weird compiler bug that kills your entire encryption system. These things may be tested against and prevented one-by-one, but they are overhead, which makes the notion of security a matter of risk management. Cryptography tries hard to reduce the reliance on trust, but it's always a big issue.
More of a theoretician, I was once lectured by a competent software engineer that in security the devil is in the details, where any system has to stand the test of time and often goes through many fixes to be just usable. Theoretical security guarantees are much stronger what is often realized in practical security systems, because implementation details fall through cracks that are covered up by theoretical abstractions that breed high-level cryptography.