To this day I still do not understand how this inane argument happened to be the single thing that killed OpenID. How is ‘cody.my-open-id-provider.com’ more confusing as a login than ‘cody@my-email-provider.com’? Hint: it’s not. I’m not one for conspiracy theories, but the whole URL-versus-email argument against OpenID seemed like the excuse various people used to put a nail in OpenID’s coffin when they didn’t like it for other less defensible reasons.
I know that Yahoo is an open ID provider, and I think Google is too, but when I'm presented with an old-style (URL) OpenId login I don't have a clue what to enter to use either my Yahoo or Google account to login.
Yes, I know that now most login forms provide easy links to use Google or Yahoo to login. The point is that entering the URL is confusing because no one knows what their OpenID url is, and it isn't standardized in anyway.
The situation is so bad that the OpenID providers had to develop a way for users to enter their email addresses, and then the client performs a discovery request to find their URL.
What bearing does the fact that Google and Yahoo chose shitty hard-to-remember OpenID URLs have to do with the overall fact that OpenID uses URLs for authentication? That’s like saying using email addresses for authentication is a terrible idea because mail administrators can assign really hard-to-remember email addresses. The solution is simple: set things up so they’re not hard to remember. Again, there is no reason why your OpenID login can’t be ‘name.my-open-id-provider.com’.
I would be willing to bet Google and Yahoo made their OpenID URLs hard to remember because they already had single sign on products that they wanted in the limelight preferentially over OpenID. However, cursory support of OpenID made them both look like supporters of open standards even if their implementation (hard-to-remember URLs) doomed it to underuse.
