4 ms·

Seems simplistic to draw that conclusion. Especially if you assume they are as hyper focused on profit above all else. If you think that way then there must be

Seems simplistic to draw that conclusion. Especially if you assume they are as hyper focused on profit above all else. If you think that way then there must be some selfish motive to them phasing out ad cookies and so the delay may be about profit but could also indicate something else.

Jensson 4y ago
Google would probably face legal issues if they did this too fast, other ad networks depends a lot more on these tracking cookies than Google does so they would sue Google for using their browser dominance to hurt their advertising competitors.
IncRnd 4y ago
> Seems simplistic to draw that conclusion. Simplistic? Maybe, but it is also realistic. > Especially if you assume they are as hyper focused on profit above all else. Google is not "they", as in a group of people. Google has been a public company for 18 years, since 2004. The main purpose of a public company has always been to maximize shareholder value by generating as much profit as possible. Google is no different in that regard.
etataetaet 4y ago
Aren't companies forced to try and make themselves as valuable as possible? My gut says they wanted to get a publicity boost so they decided to cut cookies but then had to backtrack as they realized they'd loose a lot more money than expected. I think the delay is to buy more time to think of some way of minimizing damage (profits).
- heavyset_go 4y ago
  Fiduciary duty to shareholders often is misinterpreted that way, but no, companies are not forced to maximize shareholder value above all else.
- jefftk 4y ago
  > I think the delay is to buy more time to think of some way of minimizing damage That's not a cynical take, that's what they're saying publicly. "That's why we started the Privacy Sandbox initiative to collaborate with the ecosystem on developing privacy-preserving alternatives to third-party cookies and other forms of cross-site tracking. ... The most consistent feedback we’ve received is the need for more time to evaluate and test the new Privacy Sandbox technologies before deprecating third-party cookies in Chrome. This feedback aligns with our commitment to the CMA to ensure that the Privacy Sandbox provides effective, privacy-preserving technologies and the industry has sufficient time to adopt these new solutions. This deliberate approach to transitioning from third-party cookies ensures that the web can continue to thrive, without relying on cross-site tracking identifiers or covert techniques like fingerprinting." -- https://blog.google/products/chrome/update-testing-privacy-sandbox-web/ https://blog.google/products/chrome/update-testing-privacy-s...
heavyset_go 4y ago
They benefitted from all of the good PR they got for pretending to phase out ad cookies in the past. Now they can kick the can down the road and do it again.
- hackernewds 4y ago
  They could have chosen not to do it at all unless we believe people were switching to alternatives that pushed them to. That argument is poorly supported, so I'm not as cynical about their intentions here.

Jensson 4y ago

Google would probably face legal issues if they did this too fast, other ad networks depends a lot more on these tracking cookies than Google does so they would sue Google for using their browser dominance to hurt their advertising competitors.

IncRnd 4y ago

> Seems simplistic to draw that conclusion. Simplistic? Maybe, but it is also realistic. > Especially if you assume they are as hyper focused on profit above all else. Google is not "they", as in a group of people. Google has been a public company for 18 years, since 2004. The main purpose of a public company has always been to maximize shareholder value by generating as much profit as possible. Google is no different in that regard.

etataetaet 4y ago

Aren't companies forced to try and make themselves as valuable as possible? My gut says they wanted to get a publicity boost so they decided to cut cookies but then had to backtrack as they realized they'd loose a lot more money than expected. I think the delay is to buy more time to think of some way of minimizing damage (profits).

heavyset_go 4y ago
Fiduciary duty to shareholders often is misinterpreted that way, but no, companies are not forced to maximize shareholder value above all else.
jefftk 4y ago
> I think the delay is to buy more time to think of some way of minimizing damage That's not a cynical take, that's what they're saying publicly. "That's why we started the Privacy Sandbox initiative to collaborate with the ecosystem on developing privacy-preserving alternatives to third-party cookies and other forms of cross-site tracking. ... The most consistent feedback we’ve received is the need for more time to evaluate and test the new Privacy Sandbox technologies before deprecating third-party cookies in Chrome. This feedback aligns with our commitment to the CMA to ensure that the Privacy Sandbox provides effective, privacy-preserving technologies and the industry has sufficient time to adopt these new solutions. This deliberate approach to transitioning from third-party cookies ensures that the web can continue to thrive, without relying on cross-site tracking identifiers or covert techniques like fingerprinting." -- https://blog.google/products/chrome/update-testing-privacy-sandbox-web/ https://blog.google/products/chrome/update-testing-privacy-s...

heavyset_go 4y ago

They benefitted from all of the good PR they got for pretending to phase out ad cookies in the past. Now they can kick the can down the road and do it again.

hackernewds 4y ago
They could have chosen not to do it at all unless we believe people were switching to alternatives that pushed them to. That argument is poorly supported, so I'm not as cynical about their intentions here.