[quadrifoliate]

It's not particularly surprising. Apple has a much better reputation at customer service than Google does – they have actual stores you can walk into.

Now I'm not sure whether they can help you unlock your Apple ID if you prove to them that you're the owner of the account, but I can at least visualize Apple having the scale to do that.

Google on the other hand has a horrendous reputation for locking out people out of their accounts totally and permanently. Of course everyone has concerns about handing all your account login responsibilities to a company with such terrible customer service.

[linsomniac]

Apple, on the other hand, has terrible problems with working with others that google does not.

Apple will happily tell you that if you want grandma to have a whatever color text bubble, you should buy her an iPhone, to name a recent example, rather than adopt the standard everyone else is using. I bought a Macbook last holiday season and couldn't even set it up until my wife set up her iPhone on my account to activate the laptop. I bought my wife a iWatch last week and briefly thought of getting myself one but you can't use it without an iPhone (they have a "kids" feature where a parent can activate it but it basically has no smarts at that point AFAIK).

So, for making an authentication standard, I'd trust Google over Apple.

[duskwuff]

> I bought a Macbook last holiday season and couldn't even set it up until my wife set up her iPhone on my account...

I have no idea what you mean by this. You do not need, and have never needed, to own an iPhone to use an Apple computer.

> I bought my wife a iWatch last week and briefly thought of getting myself one but you can't use it without an iPhone...

This, on the other hand, makes a little more sense. The Apple Watch is designed as a companion device to an iPhone. Much of its functionality relies upon the phone (e.g. displaying notifications from the phone, installing watch apps which pair with corresponding phone apps) -- it can't do much on its own.

[bfung]

W/o the phone, the watch is a… watch.

If pre-installed and configure, it’s still convenient for things like wallet/Apple Pay, esp when I do dumb stuff like forget my wallet and phone at home and need to pay for things.

[linsomniac]

When I got my M1 MBP there was no way, that I could find, to set up the computer and login the first time without using an iPhone. I don't remember the exact phrasing it gave me, but the only way I could get the system set up was my wife logging out of her iPhone, and logging into it as me. I don't know if this is newer than your experience, or there was some trick to get past it, but I couldn't find one.

[ev1]

I have a M1 and M2 (Pro and Air, and non-M Pro and Air) and have never done this, and never seen it. I do not even have an Apple ID logged into any Mac laptop I have ever owned.

You do not need an account or an iPhone, this makes no sense to me. Was this purchased new from a retail store?

[linsomniac]

Purchased new directly from Apple.

[jayd16]

What about all those ads for the cell iWatches that boast leaving the phone behind?

[colejohnson66]

The Apple Watch is designed to be tethered to the phone, even if just for configuration.

If you want to go on a hike while leaving your (distracting) phone behind, you can. Just don't expect 911 unless you have the GPS+cellular version.

[idle_zealot]

You need to have an iPhone in order to leave it behind.

[duskwuff]

The cellular version of the Apple Watch can perform a limited set of tasks -- like making phone calls, sending/receiving text messages, and playing music -- without a phone present. It still requires a phone for full functionality, and for setup.

[lern_too_spel]

My TV offered free Apple TV+. In order to sign in, I had to get a code sent to a laptop sitting far away. I assume they expected me to be carrying an iPhone, as no non-Apple device could provide the OTP. Using an Apple service is simply not worth the hassle.

[TheNewsIsHere]

At the risk of being pedantic, no. Apple Stores aren’t able or empowered to provide Apple ID support beyond what the public website based recovery workflows provide. I am sure someone will note that someone at an Apple Store has helped them reset an Apple ID password. What I mean is that Apple Store employees have neither procedure nor access to override Apple’s account system. You have to call support for assistance beyond what the website can do. I am sure Apple Store employees have been helpful and I’m sure policies have changed over time.

As an Apple user I find this as frustrating as it is wise. Mostly for future-me who may one day not be as savvy and manage to screw myself.

I don’t fully trust iCloud Keychain and Apple to never lose my data in a “I don’t concern myself with backups” manner. So I opt for using Passkeys where I can also add my FIDO2 tokens.

[dijit]

Eh. Pedantically; the Apple Store will at least try to help you, even if they’re not empowered to fix it they will guide you through the process until there is a resolution.

It’s not as “you’re on your own” as some products I’ve owned.

[r00fus]

This is key. That the Apple Store can't directly help you doesn't mean they won't direct you to the proper person (and possibly stay with you if possible & desired)

[quadrifoliate]

I suspected this, which is why I accounted for it – the point is that if Apple started getting enough bad press, they would have to put Apple ID verification in their stores, because their customers are the people who pay for Apple products.

Google's customers are mostly the people that get to show you ads. So they don't seem to care about even the paying users for their products. And it's sad that Apple seems to be going the way of trying to be an ad platform as well.

[politelemon]

> but I can at least visualize Apple having the scale to do that.

> Google on the other hand has a horrendous reputation for

Neither are true nor false but definitely exaggerations. All you're doing is displaying personal biases by providing them with benefit-of-the-doubts. They too have a reputation for locking people out, and are well known for turning data over, but one that HN in gernal prefers to ignore.

[notyourday]

> Neither are true nor false but definitely exaggerations.

Google does not kill services. That does not happen. Google definitely does not deplatform people killing all their accounts and all their access. That also does not happen.

[smoldesu]

Apple absolutely did not abandon the Xserve platform after promising a professional and modern Unix experience. Google is definitely the only one with a penchant for mercy-killing unsuccessful products.

[vangelis]

Google isn't killing the horse with a broken leg. It's killing anything less than the triple crown winner.

[smoldesu]

If your horse cost $150 million/year, you'd probably be itching to kill it too.

[ggm]

Missing /s