well I mean if Google shipped something in the browser that is now pretty much the only option that really helped their other business interests without getting standards imprimatur that might end up being anti-trust fodder.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
They have a low market share now, but there's really not much of a barrier to switching. So if Chrome does still go through with implementing this, people can hop right on over to Firefox.
The barrier isn't just on the user side. The initial phase of government sites – i.e. web sites where the vast majority of the public are required to use to do official things — were designed with Internet Explorer in mind exclusively. Now many gov sites officially support Chrome as the default, and sometimes mobile Safari. Right now Firefox is at 2.7% [0] of us.gov visitors, almost half that of Microsoft Edge.
The average user, especially those in business/professional settings, are going to keep Chrome as their default for a long time, even if FF becomes equivalent or even superior.
