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