back to article Google updates timeline for unpopular Privacy Sandbox, which will kill third-party cookies in Chrome by 2023

Google has updated the schedule for its introduction of "Privacy Sandbox" browser technology and the phasing out of third-party cookies. The new timeline has split the bundle of technologies in the Privacy Sandbox into five phases: discussion, testing, implementation in Chrome (called "Ready for adoption"), Transition State 1 …

  1. Will Godfrey Silver badge

    Oh Really?

    I think this is just evidence of how arrogant google has become, and why they seriously need to be taken down several pegs.

    Not holding my breath though

    1. big_D Silver badge

      Re: Oh Really?

      Firefox are much more agile and have already implemented segregation of 3rd party cookies, so they are unique to the site visited, so you get fresh 3rd party cookies for each site you visit.

      I believe Brave also has something similar.

      This is just Google delaying until they have an alternative.

  2. nematoad Silver badge

    No thanks.

    "Kleber said: "The W3C doesn't get to be the boss of anyone..."

    There speaks someone who knows that whatever Google wants, Google gets.

    The arrogance is breathtaking and to actually come out and say, "The goal isn't to have one winner and everyone else losing..." Of course it is, and shows that with over 60% of the browser market Google has made sure that it alone is to be the beneficiary of any changes that it manages to ram through.

    Google is likely to win if things go on as they are and the internet will be a poorer and more impoverished place for it.

    And to think that I have always regarded Microsoft as the unacceptable face of the IT world. Google's hubris and disdain makes MS look positively cuddly.

  3. Dave559 Silver badge

    What a load of PIGEONPOOP

    As it sounds like all these rival empire builders have gone to the birds (although, admittedly, they did that years ago), may I propose another alternative spec: PIGEONPOOP. It doesn't actually do anything, apart from shit on everyone from a great height. You are very welcome to dream up expansions for the acronym if you wish.

    If only there were some sort of Firebird [sic] which could fly over and raze these fenced-in gardens of poisonous plants to the ground…

    1. This post has been deleted by its author

  4. Trubbs

    Search engine revenues

    Thinking about that aspect. The average user will not adjust search engine settings. As the dominate browser, google (other verbs are available) will get the searches and subsequent revenue.

    Been trailing brave search beta (99% of searches brings back good results) having been on quackquackbing for a while. Using a default chrome browser the other day, wow first relevant result is half way down the page. Useless.

    In my day, you typed a query and clicked on one of the top three results. But you try telling the kids of today... and they wont believe you.

    Google = serve me irrelevant and unwanted advertising.

    1. Hubert Cumberdale Silver badge

      Re: Search engine revenues

      Get a PiHole.

      1. Trubbs

        Re: Search engine revenues

        Got one oh and a backup doesn't work on mobile tinterweb on someone else's phone though

    2. A.P. Veening Silver badge

      Re: Search engine revenues

      Google = serve me irrelevant and unwanted advertising for something I bought two weeks ago and am not likely to need again for ten years.


      1. Andy Non

        Re: Search engine revenues

        I bought some ratchet straps a month ago, now the YouTube home page keeps offering me videos about the bloody things.

      2. Chris G

        Re: Search engine revenues

        "Google = serve me irrelevant and unwanted advertising for something I bought two weeks ago and am not likely to need again for ten years."

        You can add to that for Google,Bung and quack quack the fact that most of the top returns for a search are ads even if they are not labeled so and invariably US centric no matter what your IP address is.

        The returns for at least the first page will be sellers of goods related to the search term rather than information regardless of how the search term is constructed.

        1. Hubert Cumberdale Silver badge

          Re: Search engine revenues

          Use uBlock0. Solves that problem.

    3. Chris G

      Re: Search engine revenues

      Does anyone here know much about Neeva?

      I saw something but haven't followed it up yet, it's going to be a subscription based, privacy centered search engine according to the blarb.

      I would consider it if it delivered the promised goods and was at a reasonable price point.

  5. Anonymous Coward

    They brought this

    on themselves. Advertising companies just went too far and now they will pay the price. (Hopefully).

    I am shedding real tears. (of laughter).

    1. Joe W Silver badge

      Re: They brought this

      The problem is that those who buy the advertising space still believe that the "targeted" (trough personal browser and search history) ads are 1) really targeted and 2) sensibly targeted and thus 3) worth more money than other forms of targeting.

      The problem is that since 1 and 2 are wrong, 3 is wrong as well. The examples are abundant in threads here on ElReg, so I won't repeat them.

      What's wrong with advertising stuff related to the page content? No need to track people, and the ads might actually work[*] in that context. Say... IT and generally geeky stuff here, or tools on diy and home improvement websites? So, ads related to what I am looking at right now? Preferably without sound, moving pictures, java script etc.? Then I might actually reconsider the whole adblocking stuff (almost) everywhere (though blocking JS will stay in place, and this catches most of the annoying stuff).

      [*] yeah, there will be the same problems with ads for stuff you don't need or already have - but this time the system does not pretend it is doing something extra special inteligent (<-- I'll leave that typo).

  6. Dark Eagle


    I would have been more happy if they fixed some accessibility problem with the blink engine. Back around 2015, if a browser stopped working for me, I would switch the browser, and everything would turn out fine. But ever since the complete domination of google's engine, that strategy is useless.

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    We observed that for the top 500 global publishers, average revenue in the treatment group decreased by 52 per cent, with a median per-publisher decline of 64 per cent

    Oh boo-fucking-hoo!

    1. NetBlackOps

      Given how many of the top 500 are in actuality Google properties, of course they are looking at those numbers as well.

  8. elsergiovolador Silver badge

    Just an app

    Chrome slowly turns into a app for Gmail, Drive, Docs and so on... with an option to browse websites.

    Once you start looking at Chrome like this, you will eventually stop calling it a browser.

    Google has shot themselves in the foot spectacularly, they just don't know it yet.

    1. Nunyabiznes

      Re: Just an app

      Yes but they can afford to use 1000 pound notes to stop the bleeding and never notice the cost.

      They'll just use the mountain of cash they have to browbeat the market into thinking this is what they've wanted all along.

      Those few of us that know better are not even a whisper in a hurricane.

      1. elsergiovolador Silver badge

        Re: Just an app

        So we need to lobby government to nudge HMRC to look how come they have so much cash.

        It's an anomaly.

  9. Jim Whitaker

    Am I missing something?

    Who does not:

    A. Use an ad blocker

    B. Use anti-tracking provisions

    C. Block all third party cookies?

    I fully appreciate that all three measures are not 100% but they do remove almost all the problem for me.

    1. tiggity Silver badge

      Re: Am I missing something?

      @Jim Whitaker

      But this is comments page on an IT related web site

      People doing none (or only some) of your A, B, C are likely to be very, very small % of visitors here, but make up a hefty chunk of www users overall

  10. JWLong


    In ten years GOOGLE will be the utter shit that IBM is today.

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like