Then of course just OpenID is not the whole solution, what fb connect provides is maybe more comparable to OAuth with OpenSocial than OpenID (wait, wasn’t OAuth/OpenSocial what Data Availability is? what’s missing there is maybe a PUT on the activity stream and some better packaging).

@Luke: As for “accurate names”: This might be a business factor but as a user I certainly want to choose though under what identity (be it real or not) I am logging in to a site. I even might want to have different ones to choose from.

I agree though that launch partners are very important.

The main problem with a more generic connect solution is of course what to type into that field. Not every URL is OpenID/OAuth enabled, not every email is mapped to something. Here some clever UX solution with lots of education of the user is needed and a good strategy what to do if the given term is not resolvable to a useful endpoint.

We have open standards for each of these, in PortableContacts and the OpenSocial Activity Streams spec, built on existing standards such as OAuth and AtomPub – what people have been calling the Open Stack.

I hope you can convince the rest of Facebook that your users’ trust in your data accuracy means you have nothing to fear from interoperating via open standards, as a complement to your tightly-integrated proprietary libraries.

Introducing a new UX for OpenID consumption is just going to create more confusion about what OpenID is. People may start to think that their e-mail address _is_ an OpenID after using it for OpenID Connect, and be confused when asked for a URL on other sites.

Ostensibly you’d get around this by making “OpenID Connect” a new brand, but can we get enough people to buy in to _another_ brand right now?

I think time and energy would be better spent selling the idea of OpenID URLs to end-users. Maybe that brand is what deserves another push.

I disagree with your statement that not having a major launch partner is not a blocker. With Facebook Connect, we considered the needs of major launch partners above all else, with the theory that if we satisfied them, then the rest would follow. The opposite is not true. If you come up with UX standards for email based verification and can’t convince either Google, Yahoo, or Microsoft to comply, then they don’t represent useful standards.

Finally, OpenID is just one piece of the puzzle of federated identity, and it is not an end unto itself. The best, best, best possible way to increase OpenID adoption is to increase the value of that adoption to the relying parties. Facebook Connect is valuable because Facebook has the most accurate names, accurate profile pictures and info, and a powerful distribution platform, not because it offers a standard. One easy way to provide value is to implement email verification through OpenID. The send-an-email-click-a-link loop is a big pain point for most websites; eliminating that would provide huge value and encourage adoption.

On a sidenote, RPX is a really great step towards the direction of providing usability, although it still suffers from the redirect stuff. Facebook developed some pretty intense technology to put it all in a popup and it has paid off big time in UX.