You are demonstrably right, circa 2011. The example I like is Windows CardSpace[1] which most people reinventing this have never even heard of, which is typical silicon valley. CardSpace had its own problems, but these were surmountable if the market were there.
> That year, Chris Poole of 4Chan controversially said Facebook and Google had it wrong: "Google and Facebook would have you believe that you are a mirror, that there's one reflection that you have; one idea of self,"
I don't know about that. I mean, in that year, Jericho Forum was past the formative stage and was already pushing 'personas'. Google's beyondcorp was based on Jericho Forum principles so, while it doesn't take personas into account, it does have a first-class concept of the trust tier. In my mind, these are related concepts.
But that's internal enterprise-facing.
Externally, consumer-facing as well, Chris Poole was wrong; Google actually did embrace the faceted diamond idea of identity. G+ was launched 6 months before Poole made that statement. G+' primary feature was circles, which are a similar persona/diamond/faceted idea of identity. Not from the authentication POV, of course, but definitely from the identity POV. We all know how well G+ did. Not completely, but a large part of the failure was that people are only good at being a mirror. Circles was a disaster.
> Anyhow, a decade has passed and it feels like very little has happened with identity, the ability to control identity away from centralized structures.
Are you referring to authentication, or identity? Managing multiple identity facets is too burdensome and provides too low utility to most people, and there are exposure risks. The folks that are able and want to manage multiple personas can easily manage it via multiple accounts, can they not? I'd be surprised if people on 4chan use the same username that they do on facebook, for example. They want to keep those completely 100% separate (from observable activity), and are able to do so just fine, thank you very much, within existing centralized structures. I am not sure how a decentralized structure would present an advantage and moreso, an advantage that matters.
A critically important part of the market is market timing. General Magic failed but it wasn't because their product sucked (which it did). It's because the market wasn't ready. But today, we see their legacy everywhere.
So the question is, is the market ready now in 2020? I personally don't think so, but I don't think looking back at 2011 bolsters the argument. The world is very different today. For one thing, you can raise money on a blockchain-based product, regardless of its usefulness. ;) Let's not forget, the point of VC is not to have a successful product, it's to have a successful exit. Your product advice may not be relevant.
> That year, Chris Poole of 4Chan controversially said Facebook and Google had it wrong: "Google and Facebook would have you believe that you are a mirror, that there's one reflection that you have; one idea of self,"
I don't know about that. I mean, in that year, Jericho Forum was past the formative stage and was already pushing 'personas'. Google's beyondcorp was based on Jericho Forum principles so, while it doesn't take personas into account, it does have a first-class concept of the trust tier. In my mind, these are related concepts.
But that's internal enterprise-facing.
Externally, consumer-facing as well, Chris Poole was wrong; Google actually did embrace the faceted diamond idea of identity. G+ was launched 6 months before Poole made that statement. G+' primary feature was circles, which are a similar persona/diamond/faceted idea of identity. Not from the authentication POV, of course, but definitely from the identity POV. We all know how well G+ did. Not completely, but a large part of the failure was that people are only good at being a mirror. Circles was a disaster.
> Anyhow, a decade has passed and it feels like very little has happened with identity, the ability to control identity away from centralized structures.
Are you referring to authentication, or identity? Managing multiple identity facets is too burdensome and provides too low utility to most people, and there are exposure risks. The folks that are able and want to manage multiple personas can easily manage it via multiple accounts, can they not? I'd be surprised if people on 4chan use the same username that they do on facebook, for example. They want to keep those completely 100% separate (from observable activity), and are able to do so just fine, thank you very much, within existing centralized structures. I am not sure how a decentralized structure would present an advantage and moreso, an advantage that matters.
A critically important part of the market is market timing. General Magic failed but it wasn't because their product sucked (which it did). It's because the market wasn't ready. But today, we see their legacy everywhere.
So the question is, is the market ready now in 2020? I personally don't think so, but I don't think looking back at 2011 bolsters the argument. The world is very different today. For one thing, you can raise money on a blockchain-based product, regardless of its usefulness. ;) Let's not forget, the point of VC is not to have a successful product, it's to have a successful exit. Your product advice may not be relevant.