Why would Apple, Google, Microsoft CEO want to go to congressional hearings and put a big stain on themselves for 2% market share? I think they just want to get rid of passwords because there are good people working there too and it is a pain to pay for support.
Pass managers have totp authenticators as well. I mean really, you can just sit back and have Apple do everything for you (built in totp) or the same with Google or you get 10+ pass managers to choose from, some are open source... This whole thing is rather paranoia as of now.
We must be crictical and watch out but the law is on our side:
It is theoretically possible for a dominant company to support a third-party technology or standard initially and then abandon it, which could potentially harm competition. This practice is known as "embrace, extend, extinguish" or "embrace, extend, and extinguish" (EEE). The term was coined during the Microsoft antitrust case in the late 1990s, where Microsoft was accused of using its market power to undermine competing technologies.
In the case of passkey technology or any other standard, if a dominant company were to initially support it, attract third-party developers and users, and then suddenly abandon or change the technology in a way that hampers compatibility or competition, it could potentially limit the options available to users and stifle innovation from other companies.
However, it's important to note that such practices can be subject to scrutiny and legal action under competition laws. Antitrust authorities, such as the DOJ and FTC, are responsible for investigating and addressing anti-competitive behavior. If there are indications that a company's actions are harming competition or violating antitrust laws, regulatory authorities may step in to assess the situation and take appropriate measures.
Yea but these days they will get some stupid fine like $30m which is a rounding error for these companies. Especially in the US where bribes are legal, and it has been proven over and over that the politicians will do whatever their corp overlords tell them to do.
I believe they would be then forced to open up, not just fines.
Free pass management is really a basic human right (or democracies can make them to be). I personally do not hate Apple, Google, Microsoft but they own 99% of OS I guess so if passkeys take off, they have to remain open.
I mean at least Europe and California (and the rest of the World that is not US) and even US citizens would back competition in pass management sector. What we really needed is a good Linux phone. Now I use Google stuff but I would change to full Linux+Proton I guess. They just announced their open source pass manager!
I am not saaying we should not be vigilant but I guess we are stronger than you might think (I mean we vs. a heterogenous not-really-oligopoly-us-os-providers).
Pass managers have totp authenticators as well. I mean really, you can just sit back and have Apple do everything for you (built in totp) or the same with Google or you get 10+ pass managers to choose from, some are open source... This whole thing is rather paranoia as of now.
We must be crictical and watch out but the law is on our side:
https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/presidential-action...
c-gpt free version:
It is theoretically possible for a dominant company to support a third-party technology or standard initially and then abandon it, which could potentially harm competition. This practice is known as "embrace, extend, extinguish" or "embrace, extend, and extinguish" (EEE). The term was coined during the Microsoft antitrust case in the late 1990s, where Microsoft was accused of using its market power to undermine competing technologies.
In the case of passkey technology or any other standard, if a dominant company were to initially support it, attract third-party developers and users, and then suddenly abandon or change the technology in a way that hampers compatibility or competition, it could potentially limit the options available to users and stifle innovation from other companies.
However, it's important to note that such practices can be subject to scrutiny and legal action under competition laws. Antitrust authorities, such as the DOJ and FTC, are responsible for investigating and addressing anti-competitive behavior. If there are indications that a company's actions are harming competition or violating antitrust laws, regulatory authorities may step in to assess the situation and take appropriate measures.