4 ms·

Firefox when combined with Safari are a formidable opponent to Google’s monopoly. The First Party Sets standard couldn’t be forced through because Firefox and

by Jaxkr 6y ago

Firefox when combined with Safari are a formidable opponent to Google’s monopoly. The First Party Sets standard couldn’t be forced through because Firefox and Safari wouldn’t accept it.

ysavir 6y ago
Until Google implements the behavior and applies it to their sites. Then Google services stop working smoothly on Firefox and Safari because the shared session on those sites is only functional on Chrome. Imagine having to log into gmail, calendar, drive, etc. individually each time. In theory it's not that big of a deal, but in practice could end up driving the casual users to Chrome since the tools they use work better in that browser, and ultimately they don't care which icon they click to check their email. And it'll be worse if other services decide to apply the new cookie strategy to their services, though they are definitely less inclined to do so than Google would be.
- Semaphor 6y ago
  Even Google probably doesn’t want to fuck over 33% of users in Germany. And considering iPhone market share in the US, the same might go there. And as a fun fact: Edge (12.62%) moved past Safari (11.24%) on Desktop in Germany.
  - ysavir 6y ago
    Hopefully! But I also have to look at how well Google Hangouts works in Firefox, and how well Zoom meetings work in browsers at all, and consequently limit my faith that marketshare is a heavy determinant in client behavior.
dmitriid 6y ago
Google doesn't care if Safari and Firefox don't accept something. See https://webapicontroversy.com https://webapicontroversy.com They will release it and then will engage their network of developer advocates and business representatives to try and make developers pressure Apple and Mozilla. Just some examples of one such rhetoric: https://twitter.com/slightlylate/status/1191027005342404608 https://twitter.com/slightlylate/status/1191027005342404608 and https://twitter.com/slightlylate/status/1369773901610250240 https://twitter.com/slightlylate/status/1369773901610250240 and don't forget, what's missing is your advocacy: https://twitter.com/slightlylate/status/1360364259088027655 https://twitter.com/slightlylate/status/1360364259088027655
- Jaxkr 6y ago
  These are add-on features, not core cookie functionality. I’m glad Google pushed a Web USB and Web Bluetooth. I use Web USB / Serial for a browser based microcontroller debugger. I use Web Bluetooth through the Bluefy app to control some Bluetooth devices without App Store apps. Firefox’s excuse that “security risks of exposing USB devices to the Web are too broad to risk exposing users to them or to explain properly to end users to obtain meaningful informed consent” is infantilizing its users. I’m a Firefox user, but I have Chrome installed for Web USB. I’d rather a feature exist controversially than not at all.
  - dmitriid 6y ago
    > "excuse", "infantilizing users" Where have you been for the past decade? Users provably don't understand security implications of their choices The entire ad industry in its current form, the entire tracking industry exist solely because of that. Users routinely allow malicious apps full-system access just because those apps ask nicely. I'd rather not have features than have them rammed through by a company whose only claim on profitability is running ad networks in a web they increasingly control. And yes, the "core cookie technology" that Google proposes only makes tracking easier.

by Jaxkr 6y ago

Firefox when combined with Safari are a formidable opponent to Google’s monopoly. The First Party Sets standard couldn’t be forced through because Firefox and Safari wouldn’t accept it.

ysavir 6y ago

Until Google implements the behavior and applies it to their sites. Then Google services stop working smoothly on Firefox and Safari because the shared session on those sites is only functional on Chrome. Imagine having to log into gmail, calendar, drive, etc. individually each time. In theory it's not that big of a deal, but in practice could end up driving the casual users to Chrome since the tools they use work better in that browser, and ultimately they don't care which icon they click to check their email. And it'll be worse if other services decide to apply the new cookie strategy to their services, though they are definitely less inclined to do so than Google would be.

Semaphor 6y ago
Even Google probably doesn’t want to fuck over 33% of users in Germany. And considering iPhone market share in the US, the same might go there. And as a fun fact: Edge (12.62%) moved past Safari (11.24%) on Desktop in Germany.
- ysavir 6y ago
  Hopefully! But I also have to look at how well Google Hangouts works in Firefox, and how well Zoom meetings work in browsers at all, and consequently limit my faith that marketshare is a heavy determinant in client behavior.

dmitriid 6y ago

Google doesn't care if Safari and Firefox don't accept something. See https://webapicontroversy.com https://webapicontroversy.com They will release it and then will engage their network of developer advocates and business representatives to try and make developers pressure Apple and Mozilla. Just some examples of one such rhetoric: https://twitter.com/slightlylate/status/1191027005342404608 https://twitter.com/slightlylate/status/1191027005342404608 and https://twitter.com/slightlylate/status/1369773901610250240 https://twitter.com/slightlylate/status/1369773901610250240 and don't forget, what's missing is your advocacy: https://twitter.com/slightlylate/status/1360364259088027655 https://twitter.com/slightlylate/status/1360364259088027655

Jaxkr 6y ago
These are add-on features, not core cookie functionality. I’m glad Google pushed a Web USB and Web Bluetooth. I use Web USB / Serial for a browser based microcontroller debugger. I use Web Bluetooth through the Bluefy app to control some Bluetooth devices without App Store apps. Firefox’s excuse that “security risks of exposing USB devices to the Web are too broad to risk exposing users to them or to explain properly to end users to obtain meaningful informed consent” is infantilizing its users. I’m a Firefox user, but I have Chrome installed for Web USB. I’d rather a feature exist controversially than not at all.
- dmitriid 6y ago
  > "excuse", "infantilizing users" Where have you been for the past decade? Users provably don't understand security implications of their choices The entire ad industry in its current form, the entire tracking industry exist solely because of that. Users routinely allow malicious apps full-system access just because those apps ask nicely. I'd rather not have features than have them rammed through by a company whose only claim on profitability is running ad networks in a web they increasingly control. And yes, the "core cookie technology" that Google proposes only makes tracking easier.