Well, it could be that my skepticism about OpenID will ultimately prove unfounded. It would hardly be my first mistake, nor will it be the last.
But then I read this:
"... he would not confirm when (or if) Yahoo would also allow become [sic.] what is called a "relying party" (allowing users with third party OpenIDs to log in to Yahoo). He did say that the goal was to move in that direction, but gave no further guidance."
OpenID! Where all IDs are equal, but some IDs are more equal than others!
Yahoo is hardly alone. I can't find an OpenID login on AOL or Facebook, either. Blogger (aka Google) supposedly "supports" OpenID, but their login page doesn't let me use one.
These big "adopters" sure are happy to provide OpenIDs, in exchange for detailed information about which sites you log into and when. But they're understandably reluctant to accept OpenIDs, because what's in it for them but a support headache, a loss of control over the customer relationship, and more data for their competitors?
Remind me again why this isn't just the Mexican-standoff version of Microsoft Passport, with a soundtrack by Ennio Morricone? I guess it's nice that I can now choose, site by site, which of my corporate overlords is going to own all my login data. And we get to watch as Mike Arrington and Tim O'Reilly force Google, Yahoo, AOL, Microsoft, and Facebook to play chicken, a spectacle which will sell a few banner ads.
In other news, there are now 360 million OpenID holders, just as there were once 360 million AOL CD owners. [1] Do OpenIDs make good coasters?
[1] Note: one of these statistics was made up for entertainment purposes. Do not cite on Wikipedia.
I actually (partially) agree. I think that any company that wishes to be a OpenID provider should also be a relying party. I wouldn't use Yahoo or any of the other big guys as my provider anyway, though.
I don't think sites should be reluctant to accept OpenID. It's more convenient for users to sign up, so if OpenID catches on (which obviously Yahoo thinks it will), they would likely get more (and happier) users. I'm not sure why you think support costs would be higher, since the OpenID provider is responsible for managing the user's account (lost passwords, etc...)
OpenID is very different from Passport, namely since OpenID is open, not controlled by Microsoft. As I've said before, if you're so worried about "corporate overlords" spying on you, there's a simple solution: be your own Open ID provider. It's very easy if you've every set up a simple website before.
It seems that Yahoo is allowing users to use their Yahoo IDs as OpenIDs. This will make some other sites want to use OpenID for authentication, because who wants to manage credentials if you don't have to?
However, if I'm understanding it correctly, this will not allow people to use OpenIDs that are not obtained from Yahoo to log in to Yahoo.
It seems to me to be solving half of the problem (needing new credentials for every website) but not the other half (having a corporation be the repository for those credentials).
If anyone with more of a clue can explain to me how this is not a base perversion of one of the major ideas behind OpenID, I would be obliged. ("You get to choose the OpenID Provider that best meets your needs and most importantly that you trust," from openid.net/what/)
> It seems to me to be solving half of the problem (needing new credentials for every website) but not the other half (having a corporation be the repository for those credentials).
But then I read this:
"... he would not confirm when (or if) Yahoo would also allow become [sic.] what is called a "relying party" (allowing users with third party OpenIDs to log in to Yahoo). He did say that the goal was to move in that direction, but gave no further guidance."
OpenID! Where all IDs are equal, but some IDs are more equal than others!
Yahoo is hardly alone. I can't find an OpenID login on AOL or Facebook, either. Blogger (aka Google) supposedly "supports" OpenID, but their login page doesn't let me use one.
These big "adopters" sure are happy to provide OpenIDs, in exchange for detailed information about which sites you log into and when. But they're understandably reluctant to accept OpenIDs, because what's in it for them but a support headache, a loss of control over the customer relationship, and more data for their competitors?
Remind me again why this isn't just the Mexican-standoff version of Microsoft Passport, with a soundtrack by Ennio Morricone? I guess it's nice that I can now choose, site by site, which of my corporate overlords is going to own all my login data. And we get to watch as Mike Arrington and Tim O'Reilly force Google, Yahoo, AOL, Microsoft, and Facebook to play chicken, a spectacle which will sell a few banner ads.
In other news, there are now 360 million OpenID holders, just as there were once 360 million AOL CD owners. [1] Do OpenIDs make good coasters?
[1] Note: one of these statistics was made up for entertainment purposes. Do not cite on Wikipedia.