[OpenID] Purpose of OpenID Foundation and the Elections

[Eran Hammer-Lahav]

I'm advocating more research (with real commitment of foundation resources), but I expect it to conclude that some level of consistent GUI experience will be required and if so, should be enforced.

EHL

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Pat Cappelaere [mailto:pat at cappelaere.com]
> Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 9:22 AM
> To: Eran Hammer-Lahav
> Cc: general at openid.net >> OpenID General
> Subject: Re: [OpenID] Purpose of OpenID Foundation and the Elections
>
> Eran,
>
> I think that this would be good.  Words matter (especially for lawyers
> and marketeers :).
> So the OpenID Brand should be about creating that well recognized
> promise that Johannes talked about.
>
> Now, Is the GUI experience going to be enforceable by the Brand or
> left up to the product providers?
>
> I believe that you are advocating for the former.  Am I right?
>
> Pat.
>
> On Dec 12, 2008, at 12:03 PM, Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote:
>
> > Yes. I consider brand to be a subset of product, but there is no
> > need to get philosophical. We are in agreement on how an "OpenID
> > Brand" or "OpenID Product" should be executed terms of creating a
> > well recognized "promise". We are talking about the same thing. I'm
> > happy to adjust my terms if it makes it easier to understand.
> >
> > EHL
> >
> >> -----Original Message-----
> >> From: Pat Cappelaere [mailto:pat at cappelaere.com]
> >> Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 8:57 AM
> >> To: Eran Hammer-Lahav
> >> Cc: Jack Cleaver; general at openid.net >> OpenID General
> >> Subject: Re: [OpenID] Purpose of OpenID Foundation and the Elections
> >>
> >> Eran,
> >>
> >> We may want more MBA's in the discussion but a product is not a
> >> Brand.  OpenID can be branded without any implementation products
> >> behind it the same way VISA does.  So Johannes' promise is really
> >> what
> >> the concept of the brand is.  This is what the users need to
> >> recognize
> >> immediately.
> >>
> >> You are right that we can promote OpenID as a technology or as a
> >> brand.  Problem is that promoting a generic technology does not work
> >> (which is what we have found out the hard way). We can successfully
> >> promote either a product from a particular company or a brand.
> >>
> >> Since we are not going to endorse a particular product, we are left
> >> to
> >> promote the brand.
> >>
> >> The debate at this point is regarding the User Interface.  Is this a
> >> product related issue to be managed by the respective companies? or
> >> is
> >> it a brand issue that we need to control as a foundation?
> >>
> >> For example, VISA is very defensive about its logo and appearance.
> >> This is how they get recognized by their users and how they
> guarantee
> >> the promise.  Same with McDonald by the the way,  Franchisees are
> >> independent producers but the promise to get some cheap & consistent
> >> fast food is enforced by the Brand.
> >>
> >> It seems that this is what you are trying to push for.
> >>
> >> Pat.
> >>
> >> On Dec 12, 2008, at 11:30 AM, Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote:
> >>
> >>> My use of the word product comes from the way OpenID is handled. A
> >>> product needs a market and it needs to be marketed to that
> audience.
> >>> Even if it is modeled after VISA and the likes, where VISA does not
> >>> offer any products directly, most people think about their cards in
> >>> terms of the major brand, not the issuing bank. So VISA is still a
> >>> product that has a more unique distribution mechanism.
> >>>
> >>> The main difference between OpenID as a protocol (technology) and
> >>> OpenID as a brand (product) is going to be how we as a community
> and
> >>> foundation go about promoting it. A protocol will benefit from more
> >>> standardization and discussions with engineers, while a brand will
> >>> need a marketing campaign targeting both the end users and the
> >>> distributors. In both cases we need to research what the market
> >>> needs but the audience we will contact to determine this will be
> >>> different significantly based on the direction we take.
> >>>
> >>> What makes OpenID a much more difficult sale than credit cards is
> >>> the user interface. With a card, you pull a standard size plastic
> >>> out of your wallet and show it. Most people don't really pay
> >>> attention to the "We accept" signs anymore. If the card is accepted
> >>> or not, a person on the other side lets you know. But with OpenID,
> >>> there isn't (yet) such an experience where you "show you OpenID"
> and
> >>> the site tells you if it is accepted. In addition, most sites will
> >>> not even understand what it is you are showing them, but people in
> a
> >>> store that does not accept AMEX still know what it is and why you
> >>> pulled it out of your wallet (and they are prepared to say, "no,
> but
> >>> we accept MC").
> >>>
> >>> In addition, if every store had a different way of accepting credit
> >>> cards (each using a different complex workflow or machines), people
> >>> will get tired of it and use cash (which has a very consistent user
> >>> interface). For OpenID to be a successful brand, the user
> experience
> >>> must be simple and consistent, which is the most urgent issue
> facing
> >>> adoption. I am not saying anything new here.
> >>>
> >>> So far the foundation has placed the burden of solving the
> usability
> >>> issue on the community and individual companies. It has not been a
> >>> huge success. Even the research is pretty insignificant (incomplete
> >>> sample from a handful of providers and individuals). If we want to
> >>> showcase the OpenID brand (and not hide it like HTTP, SMTP, etc.),
> >>> we need to invest resources (namely money) in significant research
> >>> and development. If elected to the board, this will be my first
> >>> priority to push forward. If rejected by the board or the attempt
> is
> >>> unsuccessful, I will push for focusing all our energy on the
> >>> technology and leave the brand alone.
> >>>
> >>> EHL
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> From: general-bounces at openid.net [mailto:general-
> >>>> bounces at openid.net] On
> >>>> Behalf Of Jack Cleaver
> >>>> Sent: Friday, December 12, 2008 7:30 AM
> >>>> To: general at openid.net >> OpenID General
> >>>> Subject: Re: [OpenID] Purpose of OpenID Foundation and the
> >>>> Elections
> >>>>
> >>>> Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote:
> >>>>> I'm not sure I understand you question. Care to elaborate?
> >>>>
> >>>> My question was not as facetious as I made it appear.
> >>>>
> >>>> A number of voters/candidates (including you) have referred to
> >> OpenID
> >>>> as
> >>>> a "product", or have implicitly concurred in such a reference. I
> >> find
> >>>> such references bewildering. I think these references are usually
> >>>> metaphorical, but this isn't always obvious from the context.
> >>>>
> >>>> I suspect that what is really meant may be that in addition to a
> >>>> brand
> >>>> and a set of specifications, OpenID can be seen as [the set of all
> >>>> OpenID providers and all OpenID Relying Parties]. Viewed as such,
> >>>> it
> >>>> can
> >>>> then be treated as the subject of a marketing effort, for example,
> >> as
> >>>> if
> >>>> it were a product. Potential users and deployers can be treated as
> >> if
> >>>> they were potential customers, and salesman-like questions can be
> >>>> asked
> >>>> about the "product", such as what are the TCO and the ROI.
> >>>>
> >>>> Is this roughly the sense in which you were using the term
> >> "product"?
> >>>>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Jack.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> EHL
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> -----Original Message-----
> >>>>>> From: general-bounces at openid.net [mailto:general-
> >>>>>> bounces at openid.net]
> >>>> On
> >>>>>> Behalf Of Jack Cleaver
> >>>>>> Sent: Thursday, December 11, 2008 11:29 PM
> >>>>>> To: OpenID General
> >>>>>> Subject: Re: [OpenID] Purpose of OpenID Foundation and the
> >>>>>> Elections
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Eran Hammer-Lahav wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> To sum my position: the main role of the OpenID foundation in
> >>>>>>> the
> >>>>>>> coming year is to help OpenID become a well understood brand
> and
> >>>>>>> successful product that has the features desired by the market.
> >>>>>> Which particular implementation of the protocol is "the product"
> >>>> that
> >>>>>> you think should be receiving the foundation's attention?
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> --
> >>>>>> Jack.
> >>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>>>> general mailing list
> >>>>>> general at openid.net
> >>>>>> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/general
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> general mailing list
> >>>> general at openid.net
> >>>> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/general
> >>> _______________________________________________
> >>> general mailing list
> >>> general at openid.net
> >>> http://openid.net/mailman/listinfo/general
> >