9 ms·

Several years ago, Mozilla/Firefox created "Persona," which was an open-source federated identity system that provided all the benefits described here. The idea

Several years ago, Mozilla/Firefox created "Persona," which was an open-source federated identity system that provided all the benefits described here. The idea was that it would eventually be built into browsers. I used it on a commercial site myself for many years. It failed to gain traction, and Mozilla eventually pulled the plug. Persona had many advantages over the Web3 vision described in this article. It was painless for a new user to create an account, because Mozilla provided a default identity server. It was easy for a website owner to set up, because Mozilla provided a JavaScript shim that worked on any browser. And it didn't rely on a wasteful and slow distributed ledger. Despite these advantages, Persona failed. I don't see how a blockchain-based approach, with so many disadvantages compared to Persona, could possibly succeed outside of the blockchain enthusiast community. And, on a technical level, a federated approach seems innumerably simpler and less wasteful than a blockchain-based approach.

cranberryturkey 5y ago
I don't know about that. I feel like oAuth and other forms of authentication are overly complex to implement. If they build a super simple implementation API then I could see it taking off.
- denton-scratch 5y ago
  I had a go at writing oAuth from scratch, to understand it. I made a working solution. But I don't use oAuth; while I was writing the code, I understood it, but I don't any more. An auth system needs to be understandable and transparent to a normal user, and oAuth is not such a system. Like, I couldn't explain it to my non-tech relatives, even if I swotted up on it first. Explaining blockchain-based auth to a non-tech user is a problem of a much greater magnitude.
w-j-w 5y ago
itsdrewmiller 5y ago
One possible advantage web3 has over Persona is that it is not under the control of Mozilla or whatever foundation Mozilla set up to address those very predictable concerns. Being distributed might help it gain early adopter mindshare which could lead to future UX improvements. (Not saying I believe this will definitely happen, just that Persona failing isn't a guarantee of failure here.)
- jdlshore 5y ago
  Persona wasn't under the control of Mozilla, either. You could still use it today, if you were willing to set up your own identity server, and if you could find any websites that supported it.
- enos_feedler 5y ago
  This doesn't explain why Persona didn't work. Unless we understand why it didn't work and show how web3 alleviates the problem, how is anyone to believe a web3 login system will work? You could also ask what has changed since Persona tried and failed? In other words, why now?
  - serverholic 5y ago
    Web3 login has been working for awhile. I've used uniswap for example and it's a fantastic experience.
    - enos_feedler 5y ago
      What percentage of all web logins are using web3 vs web2? When we say "work" here, we mean taking market share.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
- jdgoesmarching 5y ago
  That’s a lot of words to say “this will have better marketing thanks to crypto hype.” Seems to be the selling point of most web3 and blockchain solutions once you brush the buzzwords off the copy.
scotu 5y ago
Agreed. This comes down to lack of power to push a system onto it's potential users, mozilla didn't have a userbase large enough nor could incentivize 3rd parties to force onto their users. You could argue if the ux was good it would have just succeeded, but I think that's bs. Funds are the number one predictor of success of anything. My worry with the blockchain is that now it has VCs that are going to pump so much funds in it to keep it spinning and force everybody to use it because you need that service, and now (in the future) it's only provided through the blockchain (because the alternative off-chain company cannot raise funds so it doesn't exist, it fails, or it's a worse experience).
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
nathias 5y ago
federated systems are bad, they combine the negatives of centralized and decentralized systems it is no wonder that they fail repeatedly
- zingplex 5y ago
  Perhaps, but I think in this case what killed Persona was lack of adoption and interest from the public, nothing inherent to the actual technology
  - nathias 5y ago
    Yea, but that's kind of my point. Actually decentralized software is just out there and you can use it if you find a use case for yourself, there is no one that would shut it down if it isn't popular enough.
- pkulak 5y ago
  They fail because they are in the best interest of users, not corporations.
- deleted 5y ago
  [deleted]
throwaway92873 5y ago
The Persona team approached the company I was working for, asking us to add Persona login alongside our other login options. Mozilla came to us because we had a huge web presence at the time (about the size of Wordpress, let's say). We discussed it internally and ultimately rejected their request. We were going through a re-org and just didn't have anyone to spare. We were also rewriting the component where the login would live, and this would have been out of scope. Looking back, I now see that not volunteering myself for the challenge was one of the biggest mistakes I've made in my career. It was one of those rare opportunities to make a difference. I also wonder why nobody has tried it since. It's a simple approach, but you'd need a good security team backed by a trusted organization to make an implementation credible.
- dane-pgp 5y ago
  > I also wonder why nobody has tried it since. For what it's worth, the vision does live on and people are working on developing web standards that get us closer towards it. One example is the W3C's "Credential Management Level 1" from 2019, which specifically references[0] Mozilla's work: "The API defined here does the bare minimum to expose user agent’s credential managers to the web, and allows the web to help those credential managers understand when federated identity providers are in use. The next logical step will be along the lines sketched in documents like [WEB-LOGIN] (and, to some extent, Mozilla’s BrowserID [BROWSERID])." More recently, in fact, today, I see there is a "Federated Credential Management API" draft published,[1] which has the goal of: "enabling a website to request a users [sic] federated credentials from a user agent, and to help the user agent store the users [sic] federated credentials for future use." [0] https://www.w3.org/TR/credential-management-1/#teh-futur https://www.w3.org/TR/credential-management-1/#teh-futur [1] https://wicg.github.io/FedCM/ https://wicg.github.io/FedCM/
- GekkePrutser 5y ago
  Didn't Apple try it 2 years ago? Log in with Apple... I would never use these services unless it was completely open, free and privacy centric though. Apple comes a bit of the way but they tend to make stuff work only on their own hardware wish won't work for me. Persona would have been a good option. Especially because it could be self hosted. That would be amazing. It was just a bit too early.
superfrank 5y ago
> Despite these advantages, Persona failed. I don't see how a blockchain-based approach, with so many disadvantages compared to Persona, could possibly succeed outside of the blockchain enthusiast community. And, on a technical level, a federated approach seems innumerably simpler and less wasteful than a blockchain-based approach. Sometimes it's all about being in the right place, at the right time, with the right amount of hype. Inferior technologies win out all the time. That being said, if (major if) auth through web3 did take off, I wouldn't be surprised if over time it slowly creeped back toward a solution that doesn't use blockchain since a non-blockchain solution would probably be simpler, cheaper, and faster.
- iskander 5y ago
  For all of its flaws, I find the web3 space fun...but I'm also hoping that some of the non-financialized use cases move to other kinds of distributed algorithms, like Hypercore (https://hypercore-protocol.org/ https://hypercore-protocol.org/). Even if the technological ideal comes to fruition in a few years (sharded modular proof-of-stake consensus blockchains with zero-knowledge rollups and dedicated data availability layers), it will still eternally remain enmeshed with speculation and scamming. I think there's a narrow time and place for the speculative assets but wouldn't want that interwoven throughout the fabric of everything online.
  - __MatrixMan__ 5y ago
    I see the speculation-everywhere mode that web3 is currently in as a something that the future web will occasionally devolve into. An idea will come along that enough of us can get behind, that idea will attract money and solve real problems for a while and when they're no longer problematic enough to warrant spending money on the system will collapse back into speculation hell until the next idea-that-we-can-get-behind comes along.
- bko 5y ago
  > That being said, if (major if) auth through web3 did take off, I wouldn't be surprised if over time it slowly creeped back toward a solution that doesn't use blockchain since a non-blockchain solution would probably be simpler, cheaper, and faster. I don't think you necessarily need blockchain. Can't you just prove that you are who you say by signing something and sending it to the service? You can just use the protocol.
whywhywhywhy 5y ago
> I don't see how a blockchain-based approach, with so many disadvantages compared to Persona, could possibly succeed outside of the blockchain enthusiast community What’s in it for the user to sign up for persona? Nothing What’s in it for the user to get a crypto wallet? Money There’s your answer.
- yosito 5y ago
  I don't know. Brave promised me money, and I still haven't gotten anything of significant value from that.
  - Hoasi 5y ago
    I have about $100 in BAT from the initial Brave giveaway, even though I almost never use Brave aside from testing.
  - latchkey 5y ago
    Really? BAT was pretty profitable. Showing me a few ads as desktop notifications paid for a lot of my transaction costs in the early days. I just looked, BAT is up 754% over all time.
    - yosito 5y ago
      Twice, on different devices, I tried Brave as my default browser for month with ads turned on, and both times after a month of clicking on ads, the browser still said I had 0.0 BAT.
      - latchkey 5y ago
        Sigh, not sure why my first comment was downvoted. No idea as to why you didn't get any payments, but I do know that you don't have to click on the ads. https://support.brave.com/hc/en-us/articles/360026361072-Brave-Ads-FAQ https://support.brave.com/hc/en-us/articles/360026361072-Bra... "Users are rewarded for viewing ad notifications as they appear in Brave. Users are not rewarded for clicking on ads."
gillesjacobs 5y ago
Cryptocurrency ecosystems have the advantage of economic incentivization and if they're decentralised, uncensorability. Those are two major advantages.
- mattlondon 5y ago
  > uncensorability I suspect that this will be a major issue in the long-run. Once these sort of crypto-based logins become synonymous with CP and terrorism, they're going to be shunned by the average person on the street. Yes yes yes, people use email and whatsapp for the same, but at least there is the option for Google and Facebook to censor or block/ban those users (and it feels like there is increasing legal/legislational tension to try and compel the tech giants to actually do something in this area). You cannot say the same about an indelible blockchain.
  - ilogik 5y ago
    if I run an online service, and you login with web3, if you're an asshole, I can still ban your "indelible" account
    - mattlondon 5y ago
      Yep - so there all these claims about no censorship or gatekeeping etc are clearly bullshit.
      - serverholic 5y ago
        That's not true if it's a smart contract. People are still using the uniswap v2 smart-contract even though the uniswap website has completely moved on to v3.
    - wmf 5y ago
      Web3 services will be run by assholes for assholes so they won't need to ban anyone.
carlosdp 5y ago
I joined the team at Mozilla that developed Persona as an intern, just as they closed it down. Persona failed because it was fighting against a head-wind of an already established trend of using Google/FB OAuth2, without giving the service provider any new benefits. There was no incentive for a website to actually implement Persona, since it was just another auth provider and users weren't using it. Users didn't use it because no one implemented it. Chicken and egg. Websites that integrate web3 wallet login do get something new: built-in, straightforward payment rails.
- thesandlord 5y ago
  > Websites that integrate web3 wallet login do get something new: built-in, straightforward payment rails. Is this really any better than Apple/Google pay? Those are already set up, trustworthy, I don't need to convert my fiat into a cryptocurrency than can swing in value wildly, and it's super easy to set up with stripe or any of the other platforms that the website is probably already using.
  - kenjackson 5y ago
    I'm not very knowledgeable about Web3, but what you point out, I also find confusing. Why do I need to use ETH to buy an NFT -- my credit card should just do fine -- shouldn't it? Clicking the "Connect My Wallet" button is kind of fun. But I feel like I've gained nothing over just using my credit card -- in fact my credit card provides me (as the consumer) tons more benefit than using ETH -- and don't get me started on gas fees!
    - suikadayo 5y ago
      Rollup solutions like StarkNet and StarkEx on Ethereum will make apps gas-free.
    - jmoreno94 5y ago
      There's work happening now to make this a reality by partnering with on-ramps and off-ramps to go from fiat to crypto. One can imagine a world in which this is completely transparent to the end user. High ETH gas fees are also being solved by Layer 2 solutions which get fees down to cents by either batching transactions or doing the work off the main chain and posting only the proofs to the main ETH chain. Checkout zero knowledge rollups, aka zk-rollups.
hffft 5y ago
> Persona had many advantages over the Web3 it has none now ;)
voidmain 5y ago
The new hot take (I heard it from Matt Levine, I think, but I doubt it's original to him) is that pyramid schemes solve the adoption problem for technologies with network effects. Everyone would be better off with better identity management, but it's not worth anyone's time to be one of the first users of a system with no sites supporting it or one of the first site supporting a system with no users. The web3 version of this will be something where if it takes off the first adopters get super rich at the expense of late adopters, and that makes it take off. Similarly, conventional profit models incentivize the creators of a technology to make it as centralized and locked in as possible, so that they can profit off it over time. The pyramid scheme business model incentivizes the creators to make a decentralized and open system, so that they don't have to do any work over time once it takes off. Is this the special kind of stupidity that only really smart people can aspire to, or the special kind of genius that only really stupid people can? Time will tell, I guess.
imgabe 5y ago
I like Mozilla and Firefox is my default browser, but clearly that was doomed. Google is never going to be OK with Mozilla owning the identity system. Neither would Facebook, or Apple or anyone else. They all have their system for “just use us as the login to every service!” And the only result is that there are 50[1] different “universal” login options for every site. [1] ok most sites limit it to 2-3 options, but which 2-3 is up in the air.
blitzar 5y ago
Despite these advantages, MySpace failed. I don't see how facebook, with so many disadvantages compared to MySpace, could possibly succeed. fwiw I agreee, but first to market is often first to fail.

cranberryturkey 5y ago

I don't know about that. I feel like oAuth and other forms of authentication are overly complex to implement. If they build a super simple implementation API then I could see it taking off.

denton-scratch 5y ago
I had a go at writing oAuth from scratch, to understand it. I made a working solution. But I don't use oAuth; while I was writing the code, I understood it, but I don't any more. An auth system needs to be understandable and transparent to a normal user, and oAuth is not such a system. Like, I couldn't explain it to my non-tech relatives, even if I swotted up on it first. Explaining blockchain-based auth to a non-tech user is a problem of a much greater magnitude.

w-j-w 5y ago

itsdrewmiller 5y ago

One possible advantage web3 has over Persona is that it is not under the control of Mozilla or whatever foundation Mozilla set up to address those very predictable concerns. Being distributed might help it gain early adopter mindshare which could lead to future UX improvements. (Not saying I believe this will definitely happen, just that Persona failing isn't a guarantee of failure here.)

jdlshore 5y ago
Persona wasn't under the control of Mozilla, either. You could still use it today, if you were willing to set up your own identity server, and if you could find any websites that supported it.
enos_feedler 5y ago
This doesn't explain why Persona didn't work. Unless we understand why it didn't work and show how web3 alleviates the problem, how is anyone to believe a web3 login system will work? You could also ask what has changed since Persona tried and failed? In other words, why now?
- serverholic 5y ago
  Web3 login has been working for awhile. I've used uniswap for example and it's a fantastic experience.
  - enos_feedler 5y ago
    What percentage of all web logins are using web3 vs web2? When we say "work" here, we mean taking market share.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
jdgoesmarching 5y ago
That’s a lot of words to say “this will have better marketing thanks to crypto hype.” Seems to be the selling point of most web3 and blockchain solutions once you brush the buzzwords off the copy.

scotu 5y ago

Agreed. This comes down to lack of power to push a system onto it's potential users, mozilla didn't have a userbase large enough nor could incentivize 3rd parties to force onto their users. You could argue if the ux was good it would have just succeeded, but I think that's bs. Funds are the number one predictor of success of anything. My worry with the blockchain is that now it has VCs that are going to pump so much funds in it to keep it spinning and force everybody to use it because you need that service, and now (in the future) it's only provided through the blockchain (because the alternative off-chain company cannot raise funds so it doesn't exist, it fails, or it's a worse experience).

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

nathias 5y ago

federated systems are bad, they combine the negatives of centralized and decentralized systems it is no wonder that they fail repeatedly

zingplex 5y ago
Perhaps, but I think in this case what killed Persona was lack of adoption and interest from the public, nothing inherent to the actual technology
- nathias 5y ago
  Yea, but that's kind of my point. Actually decentralized software is just out there and you can use it if you find a use case for yourself, there is no one that would shut it down if it isn't popular enough.
pkulak 5y ago
They fail because they are in the best interest of users, not corporations.
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]

throwaway92873 5y ago

The Persona team approached the company I was working for, asking us to add Persona login alongside our other login options. Mozilla came to us because we had a huge web presence at the time (about the size of Wordpress, let's say). We discussed it internally and ultimately rejected their request. We were going through a re-org and just didn't have anyone to spare. We were also rewriting the component where the login would live, and this would have been out of scope. Looking back, I now see that not volunteering myself for the challenge was one of the biggest mistakes I've made in my career. It was one of those rare opportunities to make a difference. I also wonder why nobody has tried it since. It's a simple approach, but you'd need a good security team backed by a trusted organization to make an implementation credible.

dane-pgp 5y ago
> I also wonder why nobody has tried it since. For what it's worth, the vision does live on and people are working on developing web standards that get us closer towards it. One example is the W3C's "Credential Management Level 1" from 2019, which specifically references[0] Mozilla's work: "The API defined here does the bare minimum to expose user agent’s credential managers to the web, and allows the web to help those credential managers understand when federated identity providers are in use. The next logical step will be along the lines sketched in documents like [WEB-LOGIN] (and, to some extent, Mozilla’s BrowserID [BROWSERID])." More recently, in fact, today, I see there is a "Federated Credential Management API" draft published,[1] which has the goal of: "enabling a website to request a users [sic] federated credentials from a user agent, and to help the user agent store the users [sic] federated credentials for future use." [0] https://www.w3.org/TR/credential-management-1/#teh-futur https://www.w3.org/TR/credential-management-1/#teh-futur [1] https://wicg.github.io/FedCM/ https://wicg.github.io/FedCM/
GekkePrutser 5y ago
Didn't Apple try it 2 years ago? Log in with Apple... I would never use these services unless it was completely open, free and privacy centric though. Apple comes a bit of the way but they tend to make stuff work only on their own hardware wish won't work for me. Persona would have been a good option. Especially because it could be self hosted. That would be amazing. It was just a bit too early.

superfrank 5y ago

> Despite these advantages, Persona failed. I don't see how a blockchain-based approach, with so many disadvantages compared to Persona, could possibly succeed outside of the blockchain enthusiast community. And, on a technical level, a federated approach seems innumerably simpler and less wasteful than a blockchain-based approach. Sometimes it's all about being in the right place, at the right time, with the right amount of hype. Inferior technologies win out all the time. That being said, if (major if) auth through web3 did take off, I wouldn't be surprised if over time it slowly creeped back toward a solution that doesn't use blockchain since a non-blockchain solution would probably be simpler, cheaper, and faster.

iskander 5y ago
For all of its flaws, I find the web3 space fun...but I'm also hoping that some of the non-financialized use cases move to other kinds of distributed algorithms, like Hypercore (https://hypercore-protocol.org/ https://hypercore-protocol.org/). Even if the technological ideal comes to fruition in a few years (sharded modular proof-of-stake consensus blockchains with zero-knowledge rollups and dedicated data availability layers), it will still eternally remain enmeshed with speculation and scamming. I think there's a narrow time and place for the speculative assets but wouldn't want that interwoven throughout the fabric of everything online.
- __MatrixMan__ 5y ago
  I see the speculation-everywhere mode that web3 is currently in as a something that the future web will occasionally devolve into. An idea will come along that enough of us can get behind, that idea will attract money and solve real problems for a while and when they're no longer problematic enough to warrant spending money on the system will collapse back into speculation hell until the next idea-that-we-can-get-behind comes along.
bko 5y ago
> That being said, if (major if) auth through web3 did take off, I wouldn't be surprised if over time it slowly creeped back toward a solution that doesn't use blockchain since a non-blockchain solution would probably be simpler, cheaper, and faster. I don't think you necessarily need blockchain. Can't you just prove that you are who you say by signing something and sending it to the service? You can just use the protocol.

whywhywhywhy 5y ago

> I don't see how a blockchain-based approach, with so many disadvantages compared to Persona, could possibly succeed outside of the blockchain enthusiast community What’s in it for the user to sign up for persona? Nothing What’s in it for the user to get a crypto wallet? Money There’s your answer.

yosito 5y ago
I don't know. Brave promised me money, and I still haven't gotten anything of significant value from that.
- Hoasi 5y ago
  I have about $100 in BAT from the initial Brave giveaway, even though I almost never use Brave aside from testing.
- latchkey 5y ago
  Really? BAT was pretty profitable. Showing me a few ads as desktop notifications paid for a lot of my transaction costs in the early days. I just looked, BAT is up 754% over all time.
  - yosito 5y ago
    Twice, on different devices, I tried Brave as my default browser for month with ads turned on, and both times after a month of clicking on ads, the browser still said I had 0.0 BAT.
    - latchkey 5y ago
      Sigh, not sure why my first comment was downvoted. No idea as to why you didn't get any payments, but I do know that you don't have to click on the ads. https://support.brave.com/hc/en-us/articles/360026361072-Brave-Ads-FAQ https://support.brave.com/hc/en-us/articles/360026361072-Bra... "Users are rewarded for viewing ad notifications as they appear in Brave. Users are not rewarded for clicking on ads."

gillesjacobs 5y ago

Cryptocurrency ecosystems have the advantage of economic incentivization and if they're decentralised, uncensorability. Those are two major advantages.

mattlondon 5y ago
> uncensorability I suspect that this will be a major issue in the long-run. Once these sort of crypto-based logins become synonymous with CP and terrorism, they're going to be shunned by the average person on the street. Yes yes yes, people use email and whatsapp for the same, but at least there is the option for Google and Facebook to censor or block/ban those users (and it feels like there is increasing legal/legislational tension to try and compel the tech giants to actually do something in this area). You cannot say the same about an indelible blockchain.
- ilogik 5y ago
  if I run an online service, and you login with web3, if you're an asshole, I can still ban your "indelible" account
  - mattlondon 5y ago
    Yep - so there all these claims about no censorship or gatekeeping etc are clearly bullshit.
    - serverholic 5y ago
      That's not true if it's a smart contract. People are still using the uniswap v2 smart-contract even though the uniswap website has completely moved on to v3.
  - wmf 5y ago
    Web3 services will be run by assholes for assholes so they won't need to ban anyone.

carlosdp 5y ago

I joined the team at Mozilla that developed Persona as an intern, just as they closed it down. Persona failed because it was fighting against a head-wind of an already established trend of using Google/FB OAuth2, without giving the service provider any new benefits. There was no incentive for a website to actually implement Persona, since it was just another auth provider and users weren't using it. Users didn't use it because no one implemented it. Chicken and egg. Websites that integrate web3 wallet login do get something new: built-in, straightforward payment rails.

thesandlord 5y ago
> Websites that integrate web3 wallet login do get something new: built-in, straightforward payment rails. Is this really any better than Apple/Google pay? Those are already set up, trustworthy, I don't need to convert my fiat into a cryptocurrency than can swing in value wildly, and it's super easy to set up with stripe or any of the other platforms that the website is probably already using.
- kenjackson 5y ago
  I'm not very knowledgeable about Web3, but what you point out, I also find confusing. Why do I need to use ETH to buy an NFT -- my credit card should just do fine -- shouldn't it? Clicking the "Connect My Wallet" button is kind of fun. But I feel like I've gained nothing over just using my credit card -- in fact my credit card provides me (as the consumer) tons more benefit than using ETH -- and don't get me started on gas fees!
  - suikadayo 5y ago
    Rollup solutions like StarkNet and StarkEx on Ethereum will make apps gas-free.
  - jmoreno94 5y ago
    There's work happening now to make this a reality by partnering with on-ramps and off-ramps to go from fiat to crypto. One can imagine a world in which this is completely transparent to the end user. High ETH gas fees are also being solved by Layer 2 solutions which get fees down to cents by either batching transactions or doing the work off the main chain and posting only the proofs to the main ETH chain. Checkout zero knowledge rollups, aka zk-rollups.

hffft 5y ago

> Persona had many advantages over the Web3 it has none now ;)

voidmain 5y ago

The new hot take (I heard it from Matt Levine, I think, but I doubt it's original to him) is that pyramid schemes solve the adoption problem for technologies with network effects. Everyone would be better off with better identity management, but it's not worth anyone's time to be one of the first users of a system with no sites supporting it or one of the first site supporting a system with no users. The web3 version of this will be something where if it takes off the first adopters get super rich at the expense of late adopters, and that makes it take off. Similarly, conventional profit models incentivize the creators of a technology to make it as centralized and locked in as possible, so that they can profit off it over time. The pyramid scheme business model incentivizes the creators to make a decentralized and open system, so that they don't have to do any work over time once it takes off. Is this the special kind of stupidity that only really smart people can aspire to, or the special kind of genius that only really stupid people can? Time will tell, I guess.

imgabe 5y ago

I like Mozilla and Firefox is my default browser, but clearly that was doomed. Google is never going to be OK with Mozilla owning the identity system. Neither would Facebook, or Apple or anyone else. They all have their system for “just use us as the login to every service!” And the only result is that there are 50[1] different “universal” login options for every site. [1] ok most sites limit it to 2-3 options, but which 2-3 is up in the air.

blitzar 5y ago

Despite these advantages, MySpace failed. I don't see how facebook, with so many disadvantages compared to MySpace, could possibly succeed. fwiw I agreee, but first to market is often first to fail.