I'm noticing an increasing trend of sites that offer Facebook authentication. However, I don't really want an account myself.
Would my disdain of the service proper ever be overruled by use of it's authentication feature?
Web Applications Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for power users of web applications. It only takes a minute to sign up.Sign up to join this community
It won't be required, because a lot of web apps devs are the type of people who do care about Facebook's privacy problems (unlike average Joe). It will increasingly be an option, but never nessecary, and Id say other options, like Twitter or openID will also be promoted.
However, none of us on this site can predict the future.
Let us not forget OpenID, you used it to authenticate here.
Don't forget it, and talk it up. In the same way that we all would probably have been better off without Microsoft's effective 2 decade hammerlock on the personal computing realm, we really don't want the gates of the internet falling into one firm's hands.
(Yeah, the statement about Microsoft is highly debatable and I could argue both sides equally well, but that's not my point. Substitute "Standard Oil" if you don't like criticism of MS. Disclosure: I have zero connection to the OpenID Foundation.)
Web app developers are looking for ways to have less friction to get people using their service, and given that many of their users will have a Facebook account, this is often added as an alternate method of signin.
However, I have seen that generally if Facebook is offered, Twitter usually is offered too, so if you are averse to using Facebook, how do you feel about Twitter?
A lot of people will not like what I am writing, I would not choose to only support Facebook login myself; however a good case for doing so can be made!
I am now getting a problem with website that allows me to use Facebook, OpenID, and custom password etc, in that I can’t always remember the logon system I used!
So there is a case to make for only supporting Facebook, and then making use of the Facebook friends system, so your customers can tell their friends about you if they wish. If you also have adverts on Facebook, the case for only supporting Facebook login gets even better.
These days you can make a lot of money by being the best option for 10% of the possible customers while doing something that 80% of the possible customers hate! So being all thing to all people on a login page may not be the best option, see “The Purple Cow”
I would certainly hope not. In spite of the very logical and compelling argument DoNotInstall gives in his answer, I think it's completely irresponsible for any web app developer (or end-user, for that matter) to rely exclusively on any one third-party company or service for authentication, with the possible exception of OpenID.
Let's say you built a popular web app that only uses Facebook for authentication. In the unlikely event that Facebook is ever temporarily or permanently taken offline (by a bad update, DDoS atttack, SOPA/PIPA type of law, or even bankruptcy), what do you do? More importantly, what do the end-users who have come to rely on your app do? If you supported more than one form of authentication, this wouldn't be too big a problem in the long run, but if you were relying solely on Facebook you're dead in the water.
Personally I think any responsible web app developer should always keep these kinds of things in mind and, if using third-party services for authentication, always support more than one. I think it's also a good idea to always support username/password or email/password authentication as a last resort in case any of those third-parties fail.
Disclosure: Up until now, I've relied solely on Facebook to sign in to my StackExchange account. Thinking about your question and my answer has prompted me to add my Twitter and Google accounts as options. As unlikely as it is that Facebook will ever be taken down, I think it's even more unlikely that Facebook, Google and Twitter will all three be taken down at the same time.