On Wed, Nov 21, 2012 at 8:55 PM, Andreas Jellinghaus <andr...@ionisiert.de> wrote: > 2012/11/21 Martin Paljak <mar...@martinpaljak.net>: >> On Thu, Nov 15, 2012 at 7:12 PM, Anders Rundgren >> <anders.rundg...@telia.com> wrote: >> >>> Another hurdle is that the GP security model is incompatible with the >>> Internet: GP presumes mutual authentication AFAIK. This is how the >>> Google Wallet currently works (Google holds the master keys to the SE) >>> but that's not really cutting it. >> >> I don't believe that the industry players would want to give up their >> current position easily. >> Appstores (authority over what can be installed without hurdles), keys >> to the empire (GP-style approach) or monetary gatekeepers (who can >> charge a certain % for what is happening in their gardens) make money. >> Telcos would prefer to kill data based instant messaging providers >> without hesitation, if they could - SMS makes golden eggs... > > are you sure that is still the case? SMS flat is down to 5€/month over here. > and I use google talk all the time instead of SMS, unless it is > someone who doesn't have an android phone.
Even public sources estimate a "nice business" "And text messaging is still a big business, accounting for an estimated $21 billion in U.S. revenue for telecom companies last year and an estimated $23 billion this year, according to the Consumer Federation of America." Source: http://articles.latimes.com/2011/aug/21/business/la-fi-texting-20110822 The ROI on SMS is not comparable to the investments and increasing traffic for data services (where messaging is accounts only for a <1% of traffic, I believe) >> Interenet as an ideal is one thing, "business as usual" must still >> live on, unfortunately. > > thats a bit harsh I think - its not like the mobile carriers e.g. > aren't trying to sell payment systems on top > of their infrastructure or similar, but at the end it doesn't gain > wide acceptance it seems. maybe too expensive? Sure, as long as they can get a % of the business happening in their "walled garden". Then again, financial services and payments are important parts of the overall "who controls the money routes, controls the business" play, so I don't expect any of the carriers or handset platform providers to open up a loophole that would allow for some 3rd party to easily take their market, without paying. There's just no commercial interest. So yes, harsh, but I believe realistic. > I cannot comment on many things discussed here, but as someone living > in an SSO world, where I have one > place to authenticate, and every app I use gets the authentication > from that central place via OAuth: that is real > nice. Thus my personal goal would be no longer to be able to get many > credentials from many places, but only > to handle one credentials with one service on the other side, and > handle that very, very well. every other place > can use OAuth with that central place. (remember how I opposed using > openid in the past? seeing how nice it > is to have such infrastructure changed my view on that....) Sure. But that should be an *option* rather than requirement. Eventually you still would want to separate your bank account from your google account, for example. Maybe in 10 years this sounds like a stupid idea for the younger generation, but this moment in time I still would prefer the option to choose my credentials and identities (but would love to re-use them as *I* want, not how some vendor wants it (what makes OpenID better than peered implementations like saml or facebook connect or..) Sorry to hear about the OpenID thing though ;) Martin _______________________________________________ opensc-devel mailing list opensc-devel@lists.opensc-project.org http://www.opensc-project.org/mailman/listinfo/opensc-devel
