Like seven people replied to say this, but they're all missing the trick.
Most people want this because they're guided to want it. If you show people the convenience but not the risk, of course they want something with an advantage and no apparent disadvantage. But the disadvantage exists, it's just not immediately obvious.
Then some corporate machine learning algorithm decides that it's your day to have a bad year, or the screws only get tightened after you're already locked in, and the regret comes some time after the decision is made.
Whereas the nerds who can see the inside of the machine are aware that this sort of thing happens and their response is no thank you. A starkly different preference from the people paying the most attention is a troubling sign. It's the early stages of this:
The thing that gets me is that people then defend the practice because it's likely to be successful. Lots of unsophisticated people are going to put all their eggs in one basket and then have a bad time, which is a result we should be trying to prevent, not defend the people causing it because they're likely to turn a profit. Companies making money on information asymmetries and the misfortune of others is a flaw we should be looking for ways to optimize out.
I think that what is convenient to you, or to fellow engineers, is not what is convenient to the mass public or non-technical people. Very simple solutions, which are often platform-specific, tend to be a lot easier in many cases -- not necessarily all cases, but when something is built-in to a device or OS, this does remove some burdens from users.
Indeed, this generally works better than vendor-specific technologies as soon as you encounter the real world where different people have different stuff. Safari works just fine with Linux webservers because they're interacting using open standards. Then you want to get your Mac to work with Active Directory and it's a frustrating mess because it's not open standards and neither vendor wants to facilitate the use of the other's proprietary technology.
Suppose your Apple ID gets compromised. The attacker is a jerk and decides to remote erase your device. Then they use your account for black hat stuff and get it permanently banned, or just erase everything on iCloud too.
If the password manager was a different service then you'd still have the password for that service and could get in and recover your accounts on everything else. If it isn't, where's your stuff? The device and the cloud backups are both gone because they were both tied to the same compromised account.
Or you just break your phone and then realize you don't know your password. You can reset your password with your email, so now you just need your email password, which is iCloud, which is the same password. Uh oh.
Whereas if your eggs aren't all in the same basket, you can get a foothold somewhere. If you use a third party email service and haven't forgotten that password, you can still get your email on another device. If your password manager backs up to a third party service or your very own Raspberry Pi, you have access using a different set of credentials than the ones you forgot.
- A lot (most?) people’s Apple Account name is actually their main email address (e.g. Gmail), so they would still control their email address even if their Apple Account was compromised.
- You can still recover your Apple Account and iCloud Keychain without any devices (e.g. if phone broke like in your scenario).
- Your passkeys stored in iCloud Keychain are still protected even if your Apple Account has been compromised.
Someone use their phone as their only computing device (e.g. only other device is their school or work computer).
Their phone dies and the shop convinces them to go for a Pixel 9.
How screwed are they if everything was in iCloud, vs they were using 1Password ?
> How screwed are they if everything was in iCloud, vs they were using 1Password/{own,next}Cloud/Evernote/Meta/Dropbox/web apps...?
That would be a more appropriate picture.
> How screwed are they
Not much. Annoyed maybe but as long as they have access to their email and phone number they can reset their passwords.
What about the other way around? If a person broke their Android phone and a friend convinces them to move to Apple? You could argue that then they may have everything in Google and that they could log in on an Apple device with their Google account and use Chrome and Gmail and whatnot, but then they'd be storing everything in Google.
What if Google sunsets a product? Or Google unilaterally decides to close their account overnight with no human in reach for support?
I'm all for interoperability. I do get the risks at hand. But the hodgepodge of separate solutions forming a duct-tape held system is hardly usable for the "mere mortal", let alone integrating the together in reliable ways.
People want technology to disappear so they can go on with their lives and do stuff that matters to them (which integrating platform-independent third party solutions is not). So "all eggs in same basket" is an extremely valuable feature for most.
Someone uses their phone as their only computing device.
Their phone gets destroyed or stolen while they're far away from home to require a plane flight to get back. Perhaps stolen along with their ID.
How do you recover when your logins are passkey only and the passkeys are gone with the stolen phone?
I never understood how this argument even makes sense. It sounds a whole lot like you're upset that most normal people don't care about and don't want what you want.
And maybe there are some people who, faced with the risk of losing all their stuff, conclude that maybe all their stuff isn't that important to them and they don't have time for this YOLO! But there are even more people who never even consider the risk, and it seems like somebody should be looking out for them instead of people just saying "shut up nerd, normal people don't care about whatever you're worried about." Uh yeah, that's the problem, they're not made aware of it until it bites them on the ass and anybody who tries to express the concern on their behalf is told to keep their foot away from the hose of the money vacuum.
You're overblowing the harmfulness, I'm not even sure what the argument is.
Prove to me you deserve to be called a "nerd."
Same shit with the Microsoft Netscape trial, really. People didn't want alternatives because Microsoft went absurdly far out of their way to stop fair competition on their platform. Now we're seeing the same shtick, again, on a different platform.
I just wanted Passwords to be its own app because the Settings applet(?) is obnoxious to interact with in some scenarios. My passwords are already all in there.
Now, I use a Windows laptop too and would love for Apple to make the Passwords thing work there too. It probably won't :)
The general mechanism for free software to be developed is for the individual users to make modifications. Not all of them, of course, but the ones who know how to. Someone sees something wrong, fixes it.
Apple interferes with this. If you don't like an app on your iPhone, even if it's open source, you can't just make a minor change because for that you have to pay $100/year and buy a Mac and all of this friction that discourages people from doing it. And then upstream doesn't get the little change (times a thousand individual users with an itch to scratch), and the one-time contributor doesn't become a repeat contributor either.
Not only that, you can't distribute a half-finished app to the public -- even if it's free -- because it wouldn't pass review. But then you can't get any users who might help you to finish it. So the state of open source software on the iPhone is a shambles, because Apple neutered the primary mechanism for free-as-in-speech software to become any good on their platform.
Compare this to Linux on a PC where simple things are about as likely to "just work" as they are on a Mac, more likely to do so than on Windows, and weird and complicated things work better than on either of them because even though they're not always easy they're very nearly always possible.
Which is the perpetual sham of "it just works". Simple things are simple everywhere because they're common and well-supported. Complicated things are often difficult, but some platforms make them prohibitively difficult or simply disallowed, and people confuse this with "easy" because you don't remember spending time to make something work when you can't. But that's not actually an advantage, because you're not obligated to spend time on something that doesn't immediately work, but the option to choose to is valuable when sometimes it's worth it.
Ahhh so you want the public to do your QA for you and don’t mind interfering with their productivity when the first iterations of your software are a buggy mess? I am ok with Apple trying to keep the pests out of their garden, or providing a lockable gate like TestFlight where I can go into a testing situation with my eyes wide open and risks well understood. Your open source devs are not always great at disclosing the fact that their software is half baked and people install expecting a robust app and finding instead…a load of crap
I believe this whole Apple vs Linux debate is perfectly analogous to the West vs East Germany debate, to the point that almost all intuitions/arguments for the latter are perfectly reusable in the former
The difference is just that because of the halo effect they dont blame Apple for the shit that doesnt work. If there is a 3rd party tangentially involved they blame them instead.
It's a binary and you generally know the answer straight away.
Some people dislike it because they enjoy looking for answers and the freedom to change how things work. Others like it because they don't want to spend their time searching and mucking about with configurations.
And look, I don't feel that libertarians (or, let's kill the analogy, FOSSers) are always wrong. Of course they're right about some things; they're just wrong about so much more than they're right about, its like a 90/10 split, its not close. I think the cognitive dissonance is something similar to chesterton's fence: FOSSers don't respect the massive profit-motivated and closed-source companies and systems which, at best, make pockets of productive, awesome open source possible; but more realistically and worse those pockets are just the software version of "buy a Subaru because we donate money to cancer research", they're free labor/recruiting/tax writeoff/community goodwill campaigns by gigacorps, and its all just profit at the end of the day.
Nerds who can see the inside of the machine and are aware that this sort of thing happens is literally just stating in different terms the stereotype type-As assign to nerds: that they don't understand anything but the technology [1].
1: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/02/16/opinion/sunday/tyranny-co...
Now consider what happens if people do the opposite. Instead of defending convenience as an end unto itself as Moloch would have it, you create friction against bad choices. Complain about them, refuse to assist your allies in making a mistake. Do things that make bad options less convenient and redirect people to better choices.
People will still do what's convenient, but now the more convenient thing is the better thing.
What about making "the right option" better instead of making the "the wrong option" worse?
