Google gives up on Chrome plan to ditch third-party cookies

Posted:
in General Discussion edited July 23

Four years after declaring it wanted to block third-party cookies in Chrome, Google has confirmed it won't block the online trackers after all.

Colorful circular logo with a blue center surrounded by red, yellow, and green segments.
Google Chrome icon



In 2020, around the time when Apple blocked third-party cookies in Safari, Google insisted it would do the same thing. Four years later, Google has seemingly given up on blocking them.

A blog post from Google VP Anthony Chavez about the Privacy Sandbox published on Tuesday says that the plan is moving in a different direction.

"Instead of deprecating third-party cookies, we would introduce a new experience in Chrome that lets people make an informed choice that applies across their web browsing, and they'd be able to adjust that choice at any time," writes Chavez. "We're discussing this new path with regulators, and will engage with the industry as we roll this out."

The post explains that Google received feedback from many different parties, including the UK's Competition and Markets Authority and Information Commissioner's Office, as well as online publishers and standards groups. The feedback helped Google make solutions for a "competitive and thriving marketplace" and encouraged the use of privacy-enhancing technologies.

Privacy Sandbox, Google's APIs as part of its privacy plan, were apparently promising in testing, with the potential to improve as more in the industry adopted their use. However, this also meant "significant work" was needed by many participants, and that it would impact online publishers and the online advertising market in general.

Commenting on Google's cookie change of heart, Stephen Bonner of the UK's ICO told BBC News "It has been our view that blocking third-party cookies would be a positive step for consumers. The new plan set out by Google is a significant change and we will reflect on this new course of action when more detail is available."

"Our ambition to support the creation of a more privacy friendly internet continues. Despite Google's decision, we continue to encourage the digital advertising industry to move to more private alternatives to third party cookies - and not to resort to more opaque forms of tracking"

The cookie plan crumbles



Google's intentions for Privacy Sandbox, which was meant to block third-party cookies, had trouble from the outset. A year after starting work on it, Google said that the initiative would have to be delayed since "more time is needed across the ecosystem to get this right."

By 2022, Google gave up on a plan called FLoC, or a Federated Learning of Cohorts. Rather than cookies, an in-browser algorithm would analyze the user's browsing history to work out their "interest cohort."

The idea would put the user into a group of thousands of people with similar interests, who would be targeted en masse by advertisers instead of individually.

Google Chrome browser with Google homepage displayed, showing the search bar, Google logo, and options for 'Google Search' and 'I'm Feeling Lucky.' Background with blue and yellow gradients.
Google Chrome in macOS



That same year, rival browser Firefox joined Safari in controlling cross-site browser cookies, under a feature called "Total Cookie Protection." The change meant yet another browser had beaten Chrome to the cookie punch.

Google also faced intense pressure from the advertising industry over the plan. In January 2022, a group of publishers and advertisers in Germany complained to the EU competition chief to investigate Google's cookie-blocking proposal.

"Google must respect the relationship between publishers and users without interfering," the complaint read.

While the old plan of blocking third-party cookies is now dead, it remains to be seen exactly what Google's new plan for Chrome will be. Whatever it turns out to be, it's almost certain there will be pushback from an industry keen to know everything about their advertising audiences.



Read on AppleInsider

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 12
    PemaPema Posts: 98member
    An obvious decision. Money first $$$

    Google has one thing and one thing only going for it on the revenue front: Search. 

    Android doesn't make money and every hardware effort has been buried the Google Graveyard now numbering 255 headstones. 

    If Google blocks third party cookies it's cutting off it's nose to spite it's face. Never, ever going to happen. 

     :D 
    dewmebaconstangDAalsethStrangeDaysdanoxwatto_cobra
  • Reply 2 of 12
    chasmchasm Posts: 3,478member
    I knew this was going to fail when I first heard of it. Google was never going to block their own cookies and other tracking technology, so to do so to others — even in the name of user safety — was hypocritical and likely would have resulted in a massive lawsuit.

    What’s amusing is that Google continues to believe that users willingly consent to cookie use and tracking, etc by Google because what consumers really, really, want is unlimited (but targeted!) advertising. This imaginary “consent” Google believes it has been given through any use of any of their services to spy on users and draw inferences about the data they have gathered was never actually given in the first place.

    I don’t pretend to speak for the majority, but I personally would be much happier paying a fee for the services I actually use, so IMO services should at least offer that option to users — for example, the EU’s pressure to have Meta/Facebook offer an ad-free option for a monthly fee alongside the “free” (har har) ad/spying option. I’d also like Google, Meta, et al explain in plain, clear language what “free” actually costs the user in terms of personal data gathering/profile building for advertisers, etc.
    muthuk_vanalingamOferauxiowatto_cobra
  • Reply 3 of 12
    anonymouseanonymouse Posts: 6,940member
    Shouldn't this article be titled, "Google gives up on Chrome plan to take over the web"?
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 4 of 12
    coolfactorcoolfactor Posts: 2,314member

    I'm not up to speed on exactly how it works, but it sounds like this Privacy Sandbox (terrible name!) was a replacement for HTTP-based Cookies? Was this feature going to be Chrome-only, or published as an open standard for all browsers to implement? Now advertisers need to implement both cookie support and a second API that achieves the same thing? Yah, this plan was never going to work.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 5 of 12
    kestralkestral Posts: 311member
    Google Chome is a gigantic cookie.
    danoxwatto_cobra
  • Reply 6 of 12
    PemaPema Posts: 98member
    kestral said:
    Google Chome is a gigantic cookie.
    LMHO -  :D
  • Reply 7 of 12
    croprcropr Posts: 1,137member
    Pema said:
    An obvious decision. Money first $$$

    Google has one thing and one thing only going for it on the revenue front: Search. 

    Android doesn't make money and every hardware effort has been buried the Google Graveyard now numbering 255 headstones. 

    If Google blocks third party cookies it's cutting off it's nose to spite it's face. Never, ever going to happen. 

     :D 
    Not fully correct.   The Goolge search service as such is not impacted.

    If cross sites cookies were removed, the advertizers that use that cookies to track the user are directly impacted.   This would lead to a situation where
    • The user is no longer tracked by these advertizers
    • The user is tracked by Google as before (using a different technique)
    • The ads presented to the user are more generiic and no longer targeted according to the user profile, unless the advertizers are making an agreement with Google, which still has access to the full user profile data.
    • these advertizers are thus more dependant on Google if they want to show the same ads to the user.
    So the power of Google would increase.   Because Google has a market dominance in search, its own ads business revenue would see an increase. 

    As a consequence the advertizers complained. The EU commission is very susceptible for such complaints and has indicated this could be leading to a heavy fine for anti-competitive behavior.

    The same logic did not apply to Apple when the cross site cookies ware removed from Safari, because Apple did not have a relevant ad business
    gatorguymuthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 8 of 12
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,501member
    Shouldn't this article be titled, "Google gives up on Chrome plan to take over the web"?
    Chrome is just a piece of the bigger plan. ;)
    muthuk_vanalingamdanox
  • Reply 9 of 12
    danoxdanox Posts: 3,210member
    gatorguy said:
    Shouldn't this article be titled, "Google gives up on Chrome plan to take over the web"?
    Chrome is just a piece of the bigger plan. ;)
    The old plan, in the near future AI agents and small models on every corner will disrupt Googles search in a big way. They better get that Pixel phone and that ChromeBook up to snuff.
  • Reply 11 of 12
    gatorguygatorguy Posts: 24,501member
    danox said:
    If something better than Google and their services comes along, I'll be happy to move over to whatever it is. I have no attachment to them beyond their very good search and nice integrations with services across phones, TV's, smart devices, and computers on multiple platforms. 

    Yet the problem you'll have is if "that disruptive company" ever seems to be competing with Apple, you'll hate the newbie too. What drives the hate revolves around protecting Apple against all challengers, whether an enterprise, an agency, or a government, doesn't it? Seriously curious if I'm wrong. 
    edited July 25 muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 12 of 12
    danoxdanox Posts: 3,210member
    gatorguy said:
    danox said:
    If something better than Google and their services comes along, I'll be happy to move over to whatever it is. I have no attachment to them beyond their very good search and nice integrations with services across phones, TV's, smart devices, and computers on multiple platforms. 

    Yet the problem you'll have is if "that disruptive company" ever seems to be competing with Apple, you'll hate the newbie too. What drives the hate revolves around protecting Apple against all challengers, whether an enterprise, an agency, or a government, doesn't it? Seriously curious if I'm wrong. 
    None of those large companies need any protecting they are winning in the current system, but Microsoft and particularly Intel today who has been disrupted, seeing Intel fumble about now with strong competition that didn't get a leg up from government brings a smile. Oh and seeing Microsoft suck for the third time on their Windows emulation on Arm, well that also brings smile too. Both are still very much cruising on market inertia and not necessary the best tech products Microsoft will survive but Intel is in trouble.
    edited July 26 watto_cobra
Sign In or Register to comment.