People want any advantage they can get -- In this case, the advantages don't really cost anything extra.
Alternatives do cost something other than dollars. The most frequently cited would be the "big gun" left at home or in the car or whatever instead of the little gun on the person. But an argument could be made that a P365 is not harder to carry than a j frame and it does offer twice the capacity and faster reloads. Besides that, I've come to think a full-size auto is not hard to carry at all so the argument for the size penalty is lost on me until we start talking about AR pistols or something.
The non-dollar cost of automatics as a category is not in the weight, size, or concealability (although that does remain a cost of higher capacity (20 or 30 rd magazines), larger cartridges (.45), and longer barrels for greater sight radius etc.) Instead, the cost of automatics as a category is either in shooter-induced malfunctions or risk of accidental or negligent discharge. If we agree that automatics are generally "reliable" (and there's certainly enough evidence to suggest they are), we can also recognize that there are a number of different types of actions (SA, DA/SA, striker etc.) which present different risks for shooters to screw up. For example, the SA requires safety-manipulation or condition-3 carry, both which can be screwed up resulting in ND or an unprepared gun. DA/SA can be fouled up by gross negligence, but even a conscientious person can limp wrist or struggle with a slide release.
If the arguments in favor of revolvers were very compelling, they would be far more popular.
But that doesn't mean people don't make mistakes in selecting for high capacity, high-rate of fire, high ballistic performance, fast reloads and on and on, where those things almost always do cost something in trade-offs for the criteria that might be the most beneficial for their situation. Some of the criteria that matter more than high-everything are:
safe carry for the method that will actually be used
simple manual of arms
easy to shoot with good marksmanship (nothing ultralight, high-recoil, super-short, with undersize grips and crap sights)
For shootability, a S&W 66 is going to beat a J frame. A Glock 19 is going to beat a PPK. But what about a 66 vs the G19? That's like comparing a pickup truck to a minivan for driving to work. The minivan has a higher capacity, but your kids are grown up and you'll almost certainly never use those 5 extra seats. The pickup truck is also more capable than you're likely to need, and they both cost about the same money. The difference for me is in the parking. Some people might complain about the weight of the pickup truck, but I feel pretty safe parking it concealed. The G19 on the other hand is more vulnerable to unintended discharges when it's just parked in a pocket for example. But let's say I swap it for a 92FS. Great. Now I've got what is like a crew-cab truck. Better to have it and not need it than need it and not have it, right?