tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17469573.post8833848471615670351..comments2023-08-08T09:53:14.113-02:00Comments on Platform Wars: Composinghttp://www.blogger.com/profile/01739889615635395138noreply@blogger.comBlogger1125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-17469573.post-45717607482442968342008-01-26T16:35:00.000-02:002008-01-26T16:35:00.000-02:00Interesting. While it makes sense in a way (after ...Interesting. While it makes sense in a way (after all, they're only following Google/Yahoo/Mac), it's a shame the argument is generally: "A single ID helps you keep everything together."<BR/><BR/>This can be good - e.g. in the case of Apple, where my forum discussions are under the same ID as my calls to tech support, and the integration is used to ask me pertinent questions, such as feedback.<BR/><BR/>But in other places, the only real advantage is that I have one less password to remember - and considering the number of <I>other</I> log-ins I have, that's not a brilliant saving. Yahoo and Google, for instance, force/encourage me to use the same log-in across their services, but I don't really get much benefit from it, because each service is a different "sphere" for me. OK, I can have a Yahoo "portal" page linking my Pulse posts to my Flickr photos, yay. But ultimately, RSS feeds do the same thing, and more.<BR/><BR/>I think this is probably the road Windows will go down - integrating everything into a Live ID without any real <I>purpose</I>. Which is a shame, because the idea of a single log-in is actually much less powerful than the idea of making it much quicker to shunt data around.<BR/><BR/>(There are some obvious comparisons to the proposed/buggered ID system here in the UK, which suffers from the same thing. Do we want IDs that are a one-to-one match to a person? Or do we want IDs that simply mark certain resources as associated?)Scribehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08757616056135886893noreply@blogger.com