Re: [Auth]Early adopters and pesky vendors

[Kurt L. Sussman]

Thusly typed Ron Burk <address@hidden>:
> If the simplest single logon proposal is successful,
> it absolutely will not be nerds who are early adopters.
> It will be all the "normal" users who are customers of existing
> password software who will instantly become dotGNU users when
> their vendor adopts the standard. It will also be all the "normal"
> web page designers who are not programmers, and who will
> jump at the chance to participate in a standard that is simple
> and requires no programming, no SDKs, and no agreements
> with third-party servers.

OK, I can see that, IF dotGNU auth is part of the setup and part of all
upgrade processes. But what about the existing users? How will they be
inspired to upgrade so that dotGNU auth can be enabled? 'When they
upgrade' is what 'instantly' means, right? #:)

> >Implementation will be difficult, I know.
> 
> On the contrary, that part of the implementation is already done!
> Try out some of the existing password software vendors.
> The ones I've identified so far are all Windows clients, but
> if they can do plausible UI designs on Windows, I'm sure
> someone else can on other platforms (if they haven't already).
> AFAIK, they all offer detailed designs that restrict how information is
> given out. They also offer customer's choice, which is one of the things
> I would like to get from a standard that is truly open.

I'll have a hard time trying them, since I run Linux or Solaris on
almost everything. I guess I could try it on my bookkeeper's system,
since there's no substitute for QuickBooks on Windows yet...

Can we agree that the form fillers you've identified offer *Windows
users* a choice? 

Do you know what the market penetration of form filler software is? If
they've sold it to 5% of Windows users (and I think that's generous),
what percentage of their customers do you think will enable dotGNU auth,
after they upgrade?

Unless Napster-like cult status can be attached to any dotGNU auth
software, market penetration will probably be fairly thin, even with the
support of these commercial vendors. 

> >My concern is that people won't install a plugin.
> 
> You've hit on another strength of the simplest single login
> proposal -- it does not claim the client has to be a plugin,
> and a whole bunch of people already have the needed
> software installed! I say that, because the goal of this
> proposal is to involve all the existing vendors of password
> software, and get them to adopt the resulting standard.
> If that's successful, then the standard signs up a whole
> bunch of clients right away.

Have any of these venfors been contacted? How do they respond to the
idea of poking Microsoft in the eye (by competing with Passport)?

> >  It's too much work for
> >the average user (e.g. my mom). That's how IE got its market share; by
> >being the default. Passport is the default; how do we get people to take
> >one extra step to dotGNU auth?
> 
> You can't compete with Microsoft's ability to control  what's
> installed on a new PC (or even their ability to force upgrades).
> However, aligning with vendors who already have their products
> installed on many client machines provides a much faster start
> than any of the more complex solutions I've seen proposed
> to date. These vendors have proven they can sell their existing
> solution to customers; it's only reasonable to think they can sell
> even more if a standard arrives that lets them function more
> transparently with even more web sites.

I agree, with the caveats I've already stated.

> >Then there are no pesky commercial software vendors to
> >convince of the project's value.
> 
> How will you come up with the many thousands of
> single logon customers that the pesky vendors offer us on day one?
> How will you offer the customer the variety of dozens of different
> designs to choose from (some of which are already adopted by
> some corporations) that the pesky vendors offer on day one?
> I think the "pesky" vendors are invaluable if the goal is to actually
> be successful at competing with Passport.

If the vendors want to participate, they could help pump up the user
base in the early stages. 

I've watched a few startups (the commercial kind), and the ones that do
well have a balance of tech people. marketing people, and money people
from day one.  For a free project, maybe the money people can be
replaced with 'vendor alliance' people, no one will debate the necessity
for great tech people, but marketing is going to be critical for this
project to succeed, no matter how great the tech is.

I want this project to succeed, for selfish reasons. If all we get is
what the form-filler vendors bring us plus a few nerds, that won't be
success, to me.

--Kurt
-- 
----------------------------------------------------------------------
    Merlot Research Group, Inc               http://www.merlot.com
    Software Quality and Testability Consulting     address@hidden