[throwaway2056]

> ecosystems

A majority don't. A majority use their phones/banks rather than analysing ecosystems.

> It'll mean that when your family member that doesn't know to make backups loses their iPhone, the only way to get those keys back will be to buy another iPhone.

That is acceptable solution. Buy and then move on with life. Everything will be back after your shell out $$ (android).

But with local will the family member send the hard disk or USB disk containing keys to recovery? Which recovery company? Will they be honest?

Whereas if you want to new phone - all works then easy.

People want simplicity. Really thats it.

(Again it may be sad for those that don't want to carry phone but the world is designed for average user).

BTW, why do you thing banks are using proprietary device.

Ask the HN -er to

- make it possible using U2F or TOTP keys (QR code)

- the same HN-user likes to implement flashy APP - so that they

- track, help whatever

[danShumway]

> A majority don't. A majority use their phones/banks rather than analysing ecosystems.

Is this intended to be an argument for my point or against it?

The majority of people don't think about platform lock-in until it bites them, and money is tight and they can't afford to get an iPhone and then they sigh and buy one anyway because it's too annoying to switch.

> That is acceptable solution. Buy and then move on with life.

Like, you are laying out exactly how vendor lock-in happens, but your point seems to be that vendor lock-in is fine and we should just stop talking about it. "Yes, passkeys are vendor lock-in and I don't care" is maybe not as strong of an argument as you think it is? People like to be able to choose which phone they're going to buy.

----

> But with local will the family member send the hard disk or USB disk containing keys to recovery

No. They'll use Bitwarden or Dropbox and it'll be fine -- easier than setting up a new phone. They won't need to wonder if their new phone is compatible with anything, they won't need to wonder about whether their computer will work or not. It'll just work, immediately, as soon as their password app is installed.

Literally every single restoration/syncing option that's available for passkeys is also available for password databases, just as simple if not simpler. But you get an addition of a number of other simple solutions like:

- if you lose your phone and show up to a friend's house, you can type a password into a web browser and get all of your passwords back instantly.

- if you buy a windows computer and you have all of your passwords on an iPhone, you type a password into a web browser or an app and get all of your passwords back instantly.

None of that is supported with passkey.

Vendor lock-in does not make people's lives easier, it makes things more complicated. Do people really think that passkey is easier to back up than Bitwarden is?

[throwaway2056]

I understand your argument from a philosphical or idealistic view. You are correct

People know Google/FAANG rather than bitwarden.

If your family knows bitwarden then kudos. I am living in a different world.

> Like, you are laying out exactly how vendor lock-in happens, but your point seems to be that vendor lock-in is fine and we should just stop talking about it. "

- We can talk about it

- And we are now.

- But people in power don't understand (or care).

There are no equivalent, easy option. I wish some company like proton mail or some one else would run a phone with all equivalent google services. But they don't.

> They'll use Bitwarden or Dropbox and it'll be fine -- easier than setting up a new phone.

Are you sure? People would ideally like

- Buy phone

- sign in google/apple account

- All apps installed and ready to consume/produce MEDIA

> Do people really think that passkey is easier to back up than Bitwarden is?

People think in different way. They know 2 things

- Google/Apple username + password

- get SMS recovery info (again I am not recommending - people are simplistic). May be you can replace this with some other option

- For example, facebook allows for nominating a friend or a facebook for recovery

- Enter the code

- ready to consume/produce MEDIA

> They won't need to wonder if their new phone is compatible with anything,

Average Joe has brand loyalty so that they will stay in whatever. Usually. If one goes to Samsung, they usually stay there - even if Pixel is better.

> They'll use Bitwarden or Dropbox and it'll be fine -- easier than setting up a new phone.

Where is the 2FA for dropbox or bitwarden? is that file supposed to be accessible without 2FA?

I agree to your no-vendor lockin sentiment but this means some one should invest and build a platform neutral + verifiable thing.

And even if some decent govt steps in people will claim it is all to track you. So EOF.

[danShumway]

> There are no equivalent, easy option

Of course there is, the equivalent easy option is passkeys without vendor lock-in. Vendor lock-in does not make any of this easier or simpler.

Also note that current platform-offered password managers already allow syncing to new devices, so even for the people who are saying "I only want to use my Google account", syncing passwords through their Google account to Android is just as easy as using passkeys would be.

> Average Joe has brand loyalty so that they will stay in whatever. Usually. If one goes to Samsung, they usually stay there - even if Pixel is better.

This is just not true. I see people switch ecosystems all the time, and when they refuse to switch ecosystems, the reason they usually give is "it would be too annoying to port everything." Lock-in is something that affects ordinary people, I see this all the time.

> Where is the 2FA for dropbox or bitwarden? is that file supposed to be accessible without 2FA?

Weren't you just arguing for simplicity? The average user doesn't use 2FA. They should, but they don't because it's too complicated for them.

----

But this is silly, we've graduated from "people need a simple solution" to "any solution that involves anything other than a Google or iCloud account doesn't count as simple."

Which, sure, if your definition of simple is literally "the passwords stay in your Google account" then only putting keys in a Google account will do. But it's a pretty tautological definition.

And also a definition that doesn't hold up for ordinary users in my experience. People do actually understand that there are passwords for services other than Google and Microsoft because they interact with those systems today just fine. Pretty provably they can handle that level of complexity because that level of complexity is embedded in every single service that we use today.

But let's assume you're right. Even under that criteria, even if your definition of simplicity is "I sign in with an Apple/Google password and that's it, and it has to be specifically an Apple/Google password -- I want to re-emphasize that current password vaults with Google/Apple already handle this use case fine today just as simply as passkeys do, so there's still no extra simplicity or ease-of-use with passkey synchronization. At best, for those users it's as easy to sync a passkey as it would be to use a password manager. But password sync to new phones on log-in is already supported natively if you use the native built-in password managers (ie, the same password managers you'd be using for passkey).

Even under the most restrictive criteria with the least possible number of steps for syncing -- password vaults can be synced just as easily if not easier than passkeys can be.