4 ms·

The difference is that OpenID is not a 'well known startup' but an industry standard and that Apple obviously implemented the well-known protocol 'OpenID Connec

The difference is that OpenID is not a 'well known startup' but an industry standard and that Apple obviously implemented the well-known protocol 'OpenID Connect' but added some bugs and didn't want to mention that their technology could be compatible with the existing one. And I don't want to downplay the innovative additions Apple made to the whole thing (browser integration etc.), but it doesn't make an honest impression if you don't mention that your revolutionary product is a based on a well-known standard.

hobofan 7y ago
> and didn't want to mention that their technology could be compatible with the existing one Really curious for the reason behind that. If they would've mentioned it there probably would have been quite a bit less of lock-in criticism for the product. But maybe they are also banking on the devs not realizing that they aren't that locked in and have an easy option to move away.
- cmiles74 7y ago
  I suspect they didn't mention it because they see the lock-in to their product as a feature. Mentioning OpenID might give the impression that Apple would be interested in interoperability (to some degree).
  - merb 7y ago
    they didn't mention it because if they did, they would need to be a member of the openid foundation and pay the 15k$.
    - jogux 7y ago
      There's no requirement to be to a member of the OpenID Foundation to describe your implementation as OpenID; the trademark rules are here: https://openid.net/intellectual-property/trademark-license/ https://openid.net/intellectual-property/trademark-license/ The main requirement therein I would say is that you can't use OpenID to describe an implementation unless it implements the mandatory-to-implement parts of the relevant protocol specification (and all the specifications are 100% free; e.g. https://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-core-1_0.html https://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-core-1_0.html ). That's more about interoperability than anything else.

hobofan 7y ago

> and didn't want to mention that their technology could be compatible with the existing one Really curious for the reason behind that. If they would've mentioned it there probably would have been quite a bit less of lock-in criticism for the product. But maybe they are also banking on the devs not realizing that they aren't that locked in and have an easy option to move away.

cmiles74 7y ago
I suspect they didn't mention it because they see the lock-in to their product as a feature. Mentioning OpenID might give the impression that Apple would be interested in interoperability (to some degree).
- merb 7y ago
  they didn't mention it because if they did, they would need to be a member of the openid foundation and pay the 15k$.
  - jogux 7y ago
    There's no requirement to be to a member of the OpenID Foundation to describe your implementation as OpenID; the trademark rules are here: https://openid.net/intellectual-property/trademark-license/ https://openid.net/intellectual-property/trademark-license/ The main requirement therein I would say is that you can't use OpenID to describe an implementation unless it implements the mandatory-to-implement parts of the relevant protocol specification (and all the specifications are 100% free; e.g. https://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-core-1_0.html https://openid.net/specs/openid-connect-core-1_0.html ). That's more about interoperability than anything else.