
The Single Sign-On War Will Ruin OpenID - nickb
http://www.sitepoint.com/blogs/2008/10/30/the-single-sign-on-war-will-ruin-openid/
======
tlrobinson
This nails it. All the big players are becoming OpenID providers, but without
actually accepting identifiers from other providers (i.e. they're not "relying
parties"), which is nearly as bad for OpenID as not implementing it all.

I just hope that these plays by Yahoo, Microsoft, and Google to become the de-
facto identity provider backfire and they get stuck in a 33.333% share
stalemate (among themselves), forcing each to eventually become R.P.s.

Or maybe consumers will magically realize they should use some 3rd party
provider. Hah.

~~~
nickb
OpenID is sufficiently complex and most consumers have no idea how to use it.
Whoever manages to make it easy for consumers to use it might win. I say might
because most people will still prefer creating separate accounts on sites to
preserve their privacy.

And don't forget FB... if they execute fbConnect right, they'll dwarf all
these other ones and make OpenID, or whatever it will evolve into, obsolete.

------
ErrantX
These moves by the big players are of major interest (some would suggest worry
but I don't think so yet) at the moment - because my startup (:D) is actually
along the same lines.

To be honest I think OpenID is less a standard now and more a Buzz word.
Everyone is doing it subtly differently.

Also of course you have the problem where some ID's will be "worth" more than
others - just because of the provider.

The original concept of OpenID was awesome: everyone could have a page/url
identified as theirs and theirs alone. And they could use that identity in all
sorts of places.

The trouble is the execution was bad and so these larger companies are now
jumping on it to twist it into their idea of a single sign on.

I think FB Connect is a much better system personally. But not the best.

And then there is us :D we're creating a single sign on & social networking
site that is designed on a trust basis. The one thing I dislike about OpenID
is how decentralised it is. I dont see the issue (personally) with having 4 or
5, trusted, ID providers who manage all the ID's. This gives consumers the
choice of who to trust their "ID" with. But it also means the 5 providers
collaborate together in a way that can't be "trust poisoned".I'm hoping that's
where we come in....

------
sh1mmer
This is totally untrue. I sat in a room with every one of the major players
last week. There is discussion and there is a sense that everyone wants to be
in the same place. We haven't reached the exact solution right now but believe
me we are talking. Look at [http://therealmccrea.com/2008/10/20/live-blogging-
the-openid...](http://therealmccrea.com/2008/10/20/live-blogging-the-
openidoauth-ux-summit/)

While Google are launching what they have that doesn't mean everyone doesn't
want to move to the same place.

------
neilk
Brad Fitzpatrick (inventor of OpenID) linked to this article, from his blog,
without commentary. Brad is a Googler now, so maybe this is his way of telling
us what he thinks.

<http://brad.livejournal.com/2394939.html>

