MySpace Answers Google, Facebook with MySpaceID
Proving again my theory that vendors dabbling in a new frontier don't want to miss a news cycle, MySpace has launched its own data portability effort a couple business days after the launches of Facebook Connect and Google Friend Connect. Dave Winer and Om Malik call these feature wars. It's interesting to me because MySpace announced Data Availability before Facebook Connect and Friend Connect in May. The effort is coming to life today as the more comely named MySpaceID. Like Facebook Connect and Google Friend Connect, launched within hours of each other last Thursday, MySpaceID lets users use their MySpace profile data to access partner sites. MySpaceID is part of the larger MySpace platform effort, now called MySpace Open Platform, which includes the MySpace Application Platform and Post-To MySpace. MySpaceID has been implemented within AOL, Flock, Eventful, Flixster, Yoono and others, with Vodafone and Netvibes joining today as partners ahead of MySpace's original launch partners of eBay, Twitter and Yahoo. The big mobile partner in Vodafone brings some interesting possibilities in mobile social networking to mind. More impressive to me is that MySpace is built on OpenSocial, OAuth and OpenID, as well as Google Friend Connect, "to better cater to the long tail of the development community." Here is where I think Google and MySpace can make a dent: by banding together. You can't knock Facebook's reach of 130 million, but Google and MySpace could get enough people who loathe Facebook and the proprietary position it stands for to form a formidable one-two punch. ReadWriteWeb's Rick Turoczy agrees. Unfortunately, I keep reading that Facebook Connect is relatively simple while MySpaceID is just flat-out hard to implement for nondevelopers. Max Engel, who oversees MySpaceID, told AP that blogs and other small sites with limited technical help probably will find it easier to use Friend Connect. I found this to be true. My eWEEK colleague Jim Rapoza implemented Friend Connect on his Emerging Technologies blog last week and was impressed with its ease of use. Indeed, I signed in to his blog with Friend Connect by clicking a button after he set it up. It doesn't get easier than that, and ease of implementation and use is the key to any social networking endeavor. Sigh. Do you see the incongruity problem inherent with MySpace and Google? For MySpaceID and Google Friend Connect to provide a united front versus Facebook, they need to do it with MySpace's network of 127 million users and Google's name, brand and ease of implementation. But If MySpaceID is too hard for sites to implement, partner sites won't implement it, which means the millions of MySpace users won't be able to tap into it. Conversely, Google has ease of use going for it, but no social network to leverage. What would seem to be two complementary services may ultimately be broken. So, the united front is flimsy. The respective weaknesses of MySpaceID and Friend Connect may preclude them from serving as viable alternatives to Facebook. Facebook Connect wins if, in fact, this space will even see a winner. It may be too geeky for people to truly be popular. |
Comments (3)
Ah! Open ID systems, all closed again. I love that methodology. Why join and serve when you can divide and cannibalize?
Sigh.
Posted by DasJacko | December 9, 2008 9:01 AM
Hail to the thieves
There is already an Open standard for identity on the internet.
OpenID allows users to control their online identity without have any vendor lock on.
OpenID works and allows for user control. We do not need any other vendor driven proprietary online identity solutions. In this area it seems that if the solution starts with the name of a company you can be fairly certain it is proprietary and is a one sided relationship that is tilted to the vendor
The Myspace and Facebook ID initiatives are a slap in the face to the Open Principals of the internet.
Any developer and proponent of a truly Open web must take an active roll in pushing for the success of OpenID.
In my view this is an area where one cannot be on the side lines, we have to take an active roll in making sure that members identities and their data are owned by members and not companies that want to lock in with proprietary solutions.
So interesting that a short time ago Microsoft (A closed source company) wanted to push forward a standard (Passport) that would have give users the ability to have one log in that worked for many sites. At the time many in the tech and development community saw this as just another Microsoft Land Grab for our Identity and our Content. Many people saw Passport as a Microsoft effort to finally gain control of the internet by becoming the standard for digital identity.
Today we have no less than 3 closed source companies in a race to become the "Standard" for holding or Identity and therefore having access to the content that we read and the content that we creates.
All of this at a time when there are many Open Source standards that could be used (Openid is just one that comes to mind) that if properly deployed would do the right thing by putting the user/member in charge of their log in as well as their relationships across many sites.
Have we forgotten the lesson of the not so distance past ?
Why do we not see a problem with the big 3 trying to become the proprietary standard in this very important area ?
Why do developers especially Open Source developers continue to build and extend applications for closed source companies that under mind open source standards and ideals ?
Why do users continue to view giving control of their identity and content to these companies as a win, when in fact the win is clearly on the side of the company that you have allowed to take control of your identity and to generate value and revenue from your content. In return for our compliance we do not even have a right to take our identity and our content where we want.
Posted by William | December 10, 2008 7:44 AM
I have been one of the first people to propagate ESSO (Enhanced or later called Enterprise Single Sign-On) and called for Open Social to use OpenID also a year ago already.
Those vendors trying to dominate their and other members just like SkyNet pushing for Judgment Day are as stupid as to fracture systems like OpenID. Sure, it is a bit complex as I saw myself trying to get 2 different compatible OpenID providers to work with CMS systems like Drupal. Where the implementation details have been messed up by the CMS vendors, just like some of these PHP geeks and Script Kiddies or BotNet Soldiers of CyberCrooks like 000WebHostcom who have never learned how to program. So if simple means, simple to break, then Thanks, but NO Thanks for this. And at least on that MySpace could have done a bit better than the others. With a Microsoft .NET platform behind their community they'd better be sure, otherwise Viruses will just spread all across their servers like the Plague or Malaria!
Still, vendors who force people to register with THEIR ID Provider just to use THEIR portal or community have lost out!
If somebody wants to ensure, their privacy and vital information is at least nearly secure, then giving it to each of these vendors regardless of their size or name (I'd say on the contrary, just take T-Mobile or Verizon and their data-leeks to eavesdropping spies and corrupt employees day in day out!!!)
If let's say, somebody registered an ID with a neutral, specialized and trustworthy Identity Provider compatible with OpenID, then they no longer needed to share all their vital and critical data with those networks and communities. Only an encrypted and to outside viewers meaningless token is exchanged...
Well in an ideal world at least ;-|
Posted by Werner Keil | December 13, 2008 11:35 AM