[deleted]
Google’s approach to replacing the cookie is drawing antitrust scrutiny
61–70 of 354 posts
Re: Google’s approach to replacing the cookie is drawing antitrust scrutiny
#62Google's way of leveraging their browser dominance to use 3rd party cookies as a way to gain competitive advantage: Step 1: Implement a whole new browser functionality where Google alone can track people. Step 2: Eliminate 3rd party cookies so Google's competitors have to create increasingly unethical and invasive fingerprinting techniques to remain competitive. Step 3: Increase advertising rates since they are the o…
> increasingly unethical and invasive fingerprinting techniques to remain competitive.
... or serve cookies via first-party subdomain ...
Also, hasn't Safari already killed third party cookies?
Re: Google’s approach to replacing the cookie is drawing antitrust scrutiny
#63Earlier quoted context omitted.
How would chrome survive as a business?
As the window 70% of people access the Internet through globally , Chrome has nearly limitless options for monetization. Arguably, being part of Google hurts it, because it has to fit into Google's ideal business strategy.
> Chrome has nearly limitless options for monetization.
They do?
Apple gives away a pretty decent browser with their OS.
Microsoft gives away a version of Chrome with their OS (and for MacOS).
Most Linux versions ship with variants of Chromium.
The Chrome source which is a fork of WebKit which is in turn a fork of KHTML... is Open Source.
Chrome can't really be sold.
What exactly could "Chrome" the company do to make money?
Re: Google’s approach to replacing the cookie is drawing antitrust scrutiny
#64Google's way of leveraging their browser dominance to use 3rd party cookies as a way to gain competitive advantage: Step 1: Implement a whole new browser functionality where Google alone can track people. Step 2: Eliminate 3rd party cookies so Google's competitors have to create increasingly unethical and invasive fingerprinting techniques to remain competitive. Step 3: Increase advertising rates since they are the o…
You missed that Google isn't the only one that can track people under the Privacy Sandbox model - but it’s still advantageous for them since they can out-run their competitors on implementation speed and quality like they have with Chrome to capture more market share.
https://www.chromium.org/Home/chromium-privacy/privacy-sandb...
Re: Google’s approach to replacing the cookie is drawing antitrust scrutiny
#65Google's way of leveraging their browser dominance to use 3rd party cookies as a way to gain competitive advantage: Step 1: Implement a whole new browser functionality where Google alone can track people. Step 2: Eliminate 3rd party cookies so Google's competitors have to create increasingly unethical and invasive fingerprinting techniques to remain competitive. Step 3: Increase advertising rates since they are the o…
> increasingly unethical and invasive fingerprinting techniques to remain competitive. ... or serve cookies via first-party subdomain ... Also, hasn't Safari already killed third party cookies?
Then the advertisers need to trust the first parties.
Re: Google’s approach to replacing the cookie is drawing antitrust scrutiny
#66Earlier quoted context omitted.
> increasingly unethical and invasive fingerprinting techniques to remain competitive. ... or serve cookies via first-party subdomain ... Also, hasn't Safari already killed third party cookies?
Then the advertisers need to trust the first parties.
or the subdomain goes to an advertiser server.
Re: Google’s approach to replacing the cookie is drawing antitrust scrutiny
#67Google's way of leveraging their browser dominance to use 3rd party cookies as a way to gain competitive advantage: Step 1: Implement a whole new browser functionality where Google alone can track people. Step 2: Eliminate 3rd party cookies so Google's competitors have to create increasingly unethical and invasive fingerprinting techniques to remain competitive. Step 3: Increase advertising rates since they are the o…
This is a good time to remind everyone that Google has planted a hard-coded "X-Client-Data" telemetry backdoor that is sent to DoubleClick domains, is never disclosed to users and is impossible to disable.
The header, which is not available to any of their competitors, contains unique information about the install that could allow them to track people better than anyone.
Re: Google’s approach to replacing the cookie is drawing antitrust scrutiny
#68Wait wait. So Google kills off third party cookies, but then creates some new “more private” workaround, perhaps relying on some kind of trusted servers (called “FLEDGE” in the article).
And then, who gets to run those servers? Even if it’s not Google, it’s probably not just anyone, right? Does that lead to a situation where there’s some authority or group of authorities that decides whether you or your startup gets to track users? And would you suppose it would be free for anyone to join this list of approved advertisers? Or might there be a fee, or some conditions to apply?
This reminds me of a thread a few days ago where an open source browser was denied access to Google’s Widevine DRM, without which the browser would be pretty much useless for most consumers who’d like to be able to watch Netflix and such. No small-fry browsers allowed. Good luck getting out of that Catch-22.
And of another thread where it came up that if you’re trying to get a search engine off the ground, a large chunk of the internet will probably block your crawler bot, so good luck building up that search index.
Not all these things are Google’s doing (well, not that last one anyway)... but it sure starts to feel like the open web is closing up around us.
Re: Google’s approach to replacing the cookie is drawing antitrust scrutiny
#69Earlier quoted context omitted.
As the window 70% of people access the Internet through globally , Chrome has nearly limitless options for monetization. Arguably, being part of Google hurts it, because it has to fit into Google's ideal business strategy.
> Chrome has nearly limitless options for monetization. They do? Apple gives away a pretty decent browser with their OS. Microsoft gives away a version of Chrome with their OS (and for MacOS). Most Linux versions ship with variants of Chromium. The Chrome source which is a fork of WebKit which is in turn a fork of KHTML... is Open Source. Chrome can't really be sold. What exactly could "Chrome" the company do to make…
>> Chrome can't really be sold.
Chrome can not be sold for many reasons, being open source is not one of them, nothing prevents the selling of open source software, one just has to include the source or make the source available
Finding someone willing to buy chrome would be a harder problem
Re: Google’s approach to replacing the cookie is drawing antitrust scrutiny
#70Wait wait. So Google kills off third party cookies, but then creates some new “more private” workaround, perhaps relying on some kind of trusted servers (called “FLEDGE” in the article). And then, who gets to run those servers? Even if it’s not Google, it’s probably not just anyone , right? Does that lead to a situation where there’s some authority or group of authorities that decides whether you or your startup gets…
The "open web" only barely ever existed; MSIE killed it and Chrome is just a better weapon in the hands of a next generation monopoly.