One of the future developments I'm most excited about with respect to OpenID is the ability to run your OpenID server on your mobile phone. Phones can already run web servers, and with IPv6 they'll be able to have public facing direct internet addresses. Voila, your online identity lives in your pocket.
WHY did open Id have to use a URL? What is wrong with me typing [email protected] into my 'openid' field, and then it authenticates at gmail.com using the unique identifier maximusklein?
What's the big difference? One is complicated as hell conceptually, and the other is very easy to understand.
People keep saying over and over again that open ID is too hard for average users, but I just don't see any evidence that this is the case.
Users don't see URLs as URLs, they see them as pages, like on a newspaper. So OpenID is based on a concept that alien to users.
So if we have this "Sign-in with yahoo" button, soon everywhere will have 3-4 sign in methods, likely to be Yahoo, Google, Microsoft and maybe Facebook. So we basically hand over everyone on the internet to these 4 gigantic cooporations? What do you think they will use all those user accounts for? Safeguard them?
If a mum uses the internet to visit her sewing website, this person should not be forced to hand over their personal information to huge companies, who live off advertising!
OpenID is a boon for big companies, and a nightmare for the openness and freedom of the web. Your login information for all sites should be personal - it should be on your physical keychain, and not owned by Yahoo or Microsoft or anyone else.