Quite decent? I find the interface, tab handling, and engine in Safari to be superior to Chrome. Also I absolutely hate the way that the settings are displayed as web pages in all of the Chromium browsers, it's a pain to find specific settings.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Google No Longer Plans to Eliminate Third-Party Cookies in Chrome
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Can we just eliminate Chrome... and google? and the whole effin tracking-ad-business? 
There is a research that tracking ads are not more effective than regular ads (i.e. marketing tech stuff on tech portals like this) but yeah... we ended up in reality that one giang mobster convinced everyone that ThisIsTheWay...
Google is advertiser…
There is a research that tracking ads are not more effective than regular ads (i.e. marketing tech stuff on tech portals like this) but yeah... we ended up in reality that one giang mobster convinced everyone that ThisIsTheWay...Google is advertiser…
Honestly many of us advertisers don’t care. We have been preparing for privacy sandbox and first party tracking/targeting for several years. The biggest issue is some independent studies showed the privacy sandbox favored Google and increased their win rate in auctions by 60% compared with 3rd party cookies.
Some context here
I've worked in online advertising since 2004. Google has changed significantly since 2020.
This reversal in tracking is because it's seeing major tracking issues with the current set of privacy restrictions. The scale of the issue of tracking is an unimaginable number.
Advertisers are pulling back because they loose visibility of their budgets. These budgets are going elsewhere (other networks). In response, Google has taken away the ability to see performance data at a granular level with some campaign types, this means ads get plastered in far more places, monetising their networks better.
You can see this first hand with the relentless push for video ads on YouTube.
Google is trying to recoup the revenue caused by the tracking fallout.
It has also grouped its sub standard networks (banners, email, video, in-app, mobile) so it is able to spend across them without the advertiser having full control (again to make up for lost revenue).
Also, I truly believe Google is single handily responsible for pushing up the costs to end users like me and you for virtually every produce and service.
They have realised so much business starts online, it has started to raise the floor prices of the bidding auctions so significantly.
Advertisers are paying double, triple even quadruple what they were 5+ years ago. This is squeezing margins for retailers and businesses so much that these retailers have to resort to more aggressive revenue generation tactics, just to keep growth. This means cutting costs, reduce product quality, size, quantity or forcing people onto subscription models. Google do it because they can, because there is no regulation, they have a monopoly.
The end user looses out. Despite the push for more privacy, this has mean't we are inundated with advertising, in more places, across more networks, in more products. The actual end result (product or service) is in some cases not what it was years ago.
I made the mistake of leaving Google to its own devices on some campaigns recently. Meaning they can set the bid price. In this particular case the industry did not have many competitors and the actual product had fewer competitors still. Despite that google guessed what the bid price would be and it turned out to be £80 per click. It is pure theft. It is desperate for regulation. Where I the fairness, imagine walking into a shop and the owner decided to dynamically change the price based on how they felt. I under the auction model, but there were virtually no competitors and the price of £80 a bid for the click was not in context to the product value.
This is not a post to advocate advertiser visibility or more tracking, this is to demonstrate what originally started as a good intention, to protect users, had lead to more aggressive advertising, inundating us with more and squeezing retailers and businesses which had either affected product quality and the turnover of businesses stagnating growth and jobs.
Google is re-writing the auction to favour big corps or companies with big budgets, taking away controls so its ads show for far more search queries and hiding controls and merging network targeting options to make sure more ad slots are sold. It is tracking you with "cookie-less pings" but people think they are private.
I've worked in online advertising since 2004. Google has changed significantly since 2020.
This reversal in tracking is because it's seeing major tracking issues with the current set of privacy restrictions. The scale of the issue of tracking is an unimaginable number.
Advertisers are pulling back because they loose visibility of their budgets. These budgets are going elsewhere (other networks). In response, Google has taken away the ability to see performance data at a granular level with some campaign types, this means ads get plastered in far more places, monetising their networks better.
You can see this first hand with the relentless push for video ads on YouTube.
Google is trying to recoup the revenue caused by the tracking fallout.
It has also grouped its sub standard networks (banners, email, video, in-app, mobile) so it is able to spend across them without the advertiser having full control (again to make up for lost revenue).
Also, I truly believe Google is single handily responsible for pushing up the costs to end users like me and you for virtually every produce and service.
They have realised so much business starts online, it has started to raise the floor prices of the bidding auctions so significantly.
Advertisers are paying double, triple even quadruple what they were 5+ years ago. This is squeezing margins for retailers and businesses so much that these retailers have to resort to more aggressive revenue generation tactics, just to keep growth. This means cutting costs, reduce product quality, size, quantity or forcing people onto subscription models. Google do it because they can, because there is no regulation, they have a monopoly.
The end user looses out. Despite the push for more privacy, this has mean't we are inundated with advertising, in more places, across more networks, in more products. The actual end result (product or service) is in some cases not what it was years ago.
I made the mistake of leaving Google to its own devices on some campaigns recently. Meaning they can set the bid price. In this particular case the industry did not have many competitors and the actual product had fewer competitors still. Despite that google guessed what the bid price would be and it turned out to be £80 per click. It is pure theft. It is desperate for regulation. Where I the fairness, imagine walking into a shop and the owner decided to dynamically change the price based on how they felt. I under the auction model, but there were virtually no competitors and the price of £80 a bid for the click was not in context to the product value.
This is not a post to advocate advertiser visibility or more tracking, this is to demonstrate what originally started as a good intention, to protect users, had lead to more aggressive advertising, inundating us with more and squeezing retailers and businesses which had either affected product quality and the turnover of businesses stagnating growth and jobs.
Google is re-writing the auction to favour big corps or companies with big budgets, taking away controls so its ads show for far more search queries and hiding controls and merging network targeting options to make sure more ad slots are sold. It is tracking you with "cookie-less pings" but people think they are private.
Last edited:
Anyone who’s watched YouTube lately knows how bad google is at advertising. My god what a sh** show it is. All the login prompts and “sponsored spots“ are crazy too! It’s got to be one or the other! Not both! And a lot less advertising. I’m desperately trying to find a YouTube alternative!
Firefox.
Could use Safari, but it's library of allowed extensions make it a hobbled device for me. That said, the Orion browser uses Safari's settings and engine, but also allows for many of both Firefox's and Chrome's extensions.
Could use Safari, but it's library of allowed extensions make it a hobbled device for me. That said, the Orion browser uses Safari's settings and engine, but also allows for many of both Firefox's and Chrome's extensions.
Well I guess "quite decent" is underselling it a bit. I agree with your points and Safari is my main browser as well.
So the answer is not to log into google, period. I don't only not log in, I use other search engines like duckduckgo.
