3 ms·
Looks like safari gave them no choice, so now they grab this as an opportunity to say the want to do it too.
by Scarbutt 7y ago
Looks like safari gave them no choice, so now they grab this as an opportunity to say the want to do it too.
- duxup 7y agoDoes chromium really have to do what Safari did? aka "no option"?
- atonse 7y agoSafari has a tiny share on the desktop, but is pretty large on mobile. Credit to Apple for being aggressive taking on the ad companies. Yes this is totally a business decision that benefits them, but it also benefits consumers. So in that sense, the incentives are aligned. Hope they keep going.
- wnevets 7y agoHasn't safari always defaulted to no 3rd party cookies?
- pornel 7y agoSafari used to allow 3rd party cookies in some circumstances, and of course Google abused that for tracking: https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2017/11/30/google-sued-over-iphone-safari-workaround-data-snooping/ https://nakedsecurity.sophos.com/2017/11/30/google-sued-over...
- ergothus 7y agoAs I understand it: No. Rather, Safari uses "Intelligent Tracking Prevention". This blocks SOME (most?) 3rd Party cookies, but not all. For example, single sign on providers will often use cookies, and they are often explicitly 3rd party. ITP tries to let those through. IIRC Safari can be set to block ALL 3rd party cookies, but it is not the default setting. SSO providers don't NEED cookies, they can do full page redirects to avoid being 3rd party, but it does complicate matters, and the relationship between you, a site, and a 3rd party identity provider you've presumably agreed to can be a different beast than the tracking cookies that are the focus here, though of course identity providers could always join the dark side as well.