Am I the only one who want the opposite? I love having everything seamlessly tied to one ecosystem. The synergy effects are worth it and I can't see a better company than Google to handle it.
No, you're clearly in the majority of people who value their own convenience highly. I unfortunately have to include myself in that majority too, although less enthusiastically than you.
> The synergy effects are worth it
To you as an individual maybe. Overall the prospect of a populace whose information and activities are all stored and logged by a small number of entities is a pretty big "it", and I don't think the (admittedly great) personal convenience is worth it.
Edit: It occurs to me that your use of the word "ecosystem" is a bit weird. Really, what you're saying is akin to saying you like the advantages of a monoculture.
Google hasn't exactly been a good company recently, at the very least the whole reader issue has caused a lot of worry.
As an end user it is in your best long term interests to have open solutions. That means protocols with multiple implementations of the client and server ends. It means identity, authorization and exposure under your control. And it also means freedom for others to write new clients and servers.
This author admits Chrome is better. Google cannot disable his access to Chrome. If it's cancelled, then IT IS open source, and someone can run with it and make a new project (much like Cyanogen). If in the future it requires you to use other products in certain ways, then it IS open source.
There is literally no reason to not use Chrome, other than spite.
If someone else prefers another browser, that's fine. But none of the stated rationale explain why the author abandoned it.
"in the interest of free as in freedom software". Can you make any sense of that?
They can disable access to some of the functionality - for example bookmarks, password sync, what tabs you had open etc. Suddenly having a "naked" browser without any of that could be disconcerting and problematic.
My bigger point was that if you use Google (or anyone else) for 15 different things then all 15 won't be best of breed. (Obviously some could be.) Putting all your eggs in one basket means getting less than the best for some of those 15, likely the majority.
Using open solutions means you can use the best for you.
> ... free as in freedom ...
It was as a contrast to "open". For example it is possible to have open protocols, but implementing them requires licensing fees, or dealing with patents, or paying for certification. See http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html and apply it to software running on either end of open protocols.
Another point that actually bothers me more is how inflexible this is. You can't mix & match the best services when sticking to one ecosystem. And you cant take part of new development happening elsewhere. So you're actually missing out on all the cool stuff happening elsewhere, and the longer you use these services the harder it is to switch to something else.
I now use the opposite strategy, having several various providers, preferably not free, while one company provides only one service, i.e. one for bookmarks, another one for email, etc. I found that I don't miss the synergy effect as much as I thought.
My guess is more will come out, and people will see that trusting private corporations with private data isn't a great idea.