But we’ve discussed it already, and no one here can do anything about it. It’s a dead horse.
There’s certainly an argument that a person shouldn’t be allowed to change an Apple ID password by just knowing the device’s passcode. In a world where security is all-important, it would win.
But since passcodes should never be shared, particularly in a world where almost every device has multi-user Touch ID or Face ID, there’s an equally valid argument that allowing a person who has forgotten their Apple ID password to be change it by knowing their passcode offers more benefit to the entire population of users and to Apple than the harm that comes to a few.
So no, I’m not going to write an article about it because I don’t see it as an obvious mistake on Apple’s part that needs fixing. I see it as a decision that Apple made and that you disagree with because it didn’t protect you from other mistakes you made. That’s entirely understandable, and you’re certainly welcome to lobby other journalists who might agree with your point of view. Continuing to beat the dead horse here certainly won’t have that effect.
I fear you overestimate my influence. I have a pretty good idea of what I can do, and it’s quite limited. Public criticism, even when it’s valid, deserved, and effectively communicated, is often not as effective as private discussions with the right person at the right time.
I’m not against discussion at all, as long as there’s a possibility for a constructive outcome or further exploration of a complex topic. I don’t think anyone who actually reads TidBITS would ever accuse me of being a shill for Apple. I am frequently critical of behaviors that I feel are detrimental, but I always try to suggest alternatives (except when the obvious alternative is “stop doing that”). If discussion involves raising questions I didn’t ask, or suggesting potentially similar scenarios that I might not have been aware of, that’s all great.
For instance, if you look over at the discussion in our article about Apple Announces Siri Privacy Reforms, that’s a fine discussion.
Similarly, my article proposing that users be allowed to train Siri engendered some great conversation and back and forth.
But in either one, statements that Siri sucks, and Google and Amazon do voice way better, or the like do nothing to further conversation.
I’ve never done improv for real, but in reading about it and talking with people about it, I’m tremendously impressed by the central tenet, which is to say “Yes, and…” to anything from the other participants. As soon as someone says “No,” the improvisation fails.