The ward is a factory for the Combine
Should public Web services be OpenID providers only?
this is a slightly paraphrased question initially posed on the “Web & Web Usability” weblog by Diego Ferreyra:
Imagine every service (any service) provider did that. Blogger, MySpace, Digg, and so on. You would still have 3000 OpenID accounts because none of them would allow you to sign in with the OpenID provider of your choice.
Discussion can come around this: Should the OpenID providers be OpenID providers only?
this may appear an interesting discussion indeed, but an answer to this question seems to be depending upon another one: what goals public Web services want to achieve by incorporating OpenID support?
besides an ‘OpenID Code Bounty‘ which only demands from its participants EITHER to “Implement OpenID 2.0 support as a Relying Party (RP) OR Identity Provider (IdP)”, first, rather obvious answer, which comes to the surface is to provide a deeper market penetration by means of increasing their userbases.
anything else I missed?
PS another nice Diego’s remark from the same blog post:
I wonder what people would’ve said if it was Microsoft who had given this kind of OpenID support.
“Now you can use yourname.passport.com as an OpenID account”, — “No, you can’t sign in into our services using another’s provider OpenID”.
my guess people wouldn’t say anything special, being already accustomed to the ‘One Microsoft Way‘ in particular and a .COM Web services’ common way in general.