[HN Gopher] Enter Sandbox: Google is building an internet withou...
___________________________________________________________________
Enter Sandbox: Google is building an internet without cookies
Author : wolverine876
Score : 77 points
Date : 2021-01-17 18:50 UTC (4 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.pressgazette.co.uk)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.pressgazette.co.uk)
| 0x011721 wrote:
| Advertising company takes steps to strengthen its advertising
| monopoly and shoulder out the competition. News at 11.
|
| Before you say "use firefox", ask yourself why Google donates
| money to Mozilla.
|
| The other aspect of advertising company is spy company. This will
| give Google better ways to track users across the web. I'm sure
| there will be no side effects and the information will be used
| only for good.
| birdyrooster wrote:
| Why wouldn't services just proxy their vendors cookies for them
| via another side channel? Then voila your third party cookie
| problem goes away.
| Dma54rhs wrote:
| Mainly a trust issue with publishers.
| jedberg wrote:
| The main reason is speed. It ads extra latency that kills ad
| response rates.
|
| Secondly is trust. The third party has no way to verify the
| first party isn't sending bogus requests to increase their
| payments from the third party and/or hurt their competitors.
| sleavey wrote:
| I've wondered this for years. It was the first thing I expected
| ad networks would start doing once third party cookies were
| getting blocked widely.
| lmkg wrote:
| Google wants your Google Account to be the only Identity Signal
| available on the web.
|
| This feature is available right now in Analytics and Ads. It's
| called "Google Signals." The documentation is publicly available,
| although it's a little scattered between different product page.
| I'll summarize:
|
| If the user is using Chrome, and is logged into their Google
| Account, then you can use _that_ instead of _cookies_. This is
| used for pulling in demographic information, cross-domain
| tracking, and cross-device tracking (something even 3rd-party
| cookies can 't do without fingerprinting!).
|
| The Privacy Sandbox kills _other_ channels that might be an
| identity signal. Meaning ones available to parties other than
| Google.
|
| Even as an anti-Google zealot who disapproves of this, I'll admit
| there are some ancillary benefits. For one, I honestly do believe
| that Google intends to kill fingerprinting, because it's in their
| interest to do so. For another, Google does offer a setting
| "disable personalized advertising" which will centrally let you
| opt-out of this tracking.
|
| But most people are surprised when they find out that things
| already work this way, which to me already puts it on ethically
| dubious foundations from a privacy perspective. And, of course,
| the monopoly issue.
| cpeterso wrote:
| > If the user is using Chrome, and is logged into their Google
| Account, then you can use that instead of cookies.
|
| How is the Google Account ID shared if not by cookies?
| nahtnam wrote:
| I wonder if they are also doing this to get around the GDPR
| related cookies stuff. Don't need to have a banner if you don't
| use cookies. I assume this would also apply to sites using
| Google Analytics as well
| Gwypaas wrote:
| GDPR is actually technology agnostic, it doesn't mention
| cookies or any other technology. If you store extra PII in
| any way, cookies, fingerprinting, localstorage or whatever
| you need to ask for consent with opt-in.
| solarkraft wrote:
| Obviously that just gives Google a monopoly on tracking. So
| that's cool, I guess ...
| uyt wrote:
| Centralization is not always bad. Google is a single company
| and can be regulated so you can opt-out.
|
| I guess I just don't care who makes money off fingerprinting
| as long as I can choose that no one makes money off me
| personally.
| wackget wrote:
| How do you kill fingerprinting, though? It's impossible without
| limiting what web developers can do with their sites.
| hrktb wrote:
| That's interesting, Google
|
| > "disable personalized advertising"
|
| On this bit, tracking concerns are not just for advertising
| though. Extending your reading on how they replace cookies with
| the Google id, I'd see them replacing ad targeting with other
| uses of the data anything that wouldn't straight be labelled as
| "ad" (scoring, black listing, indirect target matching, etc.)
| joefkelley wrote:
| I'm a Google engineer who interacts a little bit with this
| kind of stuff.
|
| There are a few settings for this kind of thing. You can take
| a look at https://myaccount.google.com/data-and-
| personalization
|
| The "Ad personalization" bit is probably what the parent
| comment is referring to. But it sounds like you're interested
| in the "Web & App Activity" bit, which will turn off the non-
| ads usage of your data. To a certain extent at least, since
| there are some grey areas.
|
| For example, I'm on the team that sends Google Shopping
| emails. If you click a button to track the price of a
| specific TV, we'll still send you an email if that price
| drops even if you've opted out of "Web & App Activity". But
| if you've just been browsing shopping pages for TVs, we won't
| send you a general email about TV deals if you've opted out.
| Both of those cases are in some literal sense "web activity"
| but it's still pretty clear what the user expects.
|
| But you might imagine- if you're tracking the price of a
| specific TV and opted-out of Web & App Activity, should we
| send you an email if a near-identical TV drops in price? We
| probably wouldn't, and we don't have anything like this
| today, but it's not quite as clear. And Google has so many
| features across different teams, I can imagine there's
| probably at least one where some privacy reviewer made a
| different call than what you would have made.
| lifeisstillgood wrote:
| Forgive the grumpy old man approach here, but can't this
| all just stop.
|
| The price of a TV (or almost any common product) is driven
| more by large scale factors (cost, competition, features
| and brand) than the latest 4 dollar shift because of some
| promotion in some channel somewhere.
|
| We are optimising for the wrong things. Computers are
| _supposed_ to be our agent in the digital realm, reaching
| out for us, in our best interests.
|
| If we turn off all storage of personalised information
| completely and utterly, 95% of everything I ask can be
| answered from context (please show me cheap TVs).
|
| Look, i don't object to the idea behind the sandbox (it's
| always been weird that browsers tell the server what fonts
| and other settings exist. I mean who ever optimised for
| that)
|
| What bothers me is that it's a google id. Just let me have
| a few U2F ids - this is my shopping id, track it if you
| may. when I take it out of the slot stop tracking me.
|
| I am sure I am feeling extra grumpy today, but when we stop
| tracking and trying to find ways to make me buy, and start
| finding ways to make my life better, that's when we have a
| digital revolution.
| cung wrote:
| An interesting thing I've noted on disabling personalized
| advertisements: My SO, who has personalized ads on and lives in
| the same household, sees ads based on my behaviour. So the ads
| aren't personalized to me, but they certainly are to my SO.
| goliatone wrote:
| Depending on the type of ads being served that cross-profile-
| pollination could lead to info leakage and problematic and/or
| weird situations. It makes me want to be able to build a fake
| persona rather than a ghost/anonymous profile
| konjin wrote:
| You're assuming competence that isn't there. It's a shared
| ip address, there is still plenty of tracking that is dumb
| enough to assume that it means that you're the same person
| and that gets thrown into her 'unique fingerprint'.
|
| I'm not sure who gets the worst deal from tracking, the
| companies buying ads or us having to see them.
| conradev wrote:
| I can't seem to find the name, but someone built exactly
| this: an agent that sits on your computer and generates
| noise. Visiting random web pages, performing random
| searches, etc. You'd then get random, non-personalized ads.
| input_sh wrote:
| In other words, they're personalised to your IP address, but
| since only your SO has personalised ads turned on, they see
| what's personalised to both of you.
| onion2k wrote:
| _If the user is using Chrome, and is logged into their Google
| Account..._
|
| What does it do if the user _isn 't_ signed in to Google?
|
| Google's engineers would have to have an _unbelievable_ level
| of contempt for users to propose a feature that claims to
| improve privacy by signing in to Google.
| einpoklum wrote:
| Another reason not to have Google profile and block them as a
| 3rd-party when relevant, e.g. using EFF Privacy Badger and uBlock
| Origin.
|
| Also, try avoiding Chrome. At least use Chromium, preferably
| something else.
| cccc4all wrote:
| Antitrust. That's it. That's the comment.
| jedberg wrote:
| Ok, so basically Chrome will keep a profile on you and send that
| Google, so as long as the ads on the webpage are Google ads they
| will be targeted, but any third party provider will not be able
| to do the same?
|
| Sounds like they are finally realizing their vision for making
| Chrome in the first place -- to sell more ads.
|
| I'll stick with Firefox with temporary tabs -- I already an
| protected from third party cookies because Firefox already
| isolates every tab, but importantly doesn't send my browsing data
| anywhere.
| Yetanfou wrote:
| I'm still on Firefox as well, not using Chromium for anything
| but testing and those sites which only work in the Google
| browser. I do wonder if Firefox will remain to be the freedom-
| friendly choice that it is purported to be given Mozilla's
| CEO's recent call for a more censorship-friendly internet [1],
| with "factual voices" (and who gets to decide what is fact, and
| what is fiction or false narrative? Who will get to be the
| Ministry off Truth?) being "turned on by default". I am
| perfectly capable of deciding for myself how to find "truth" on
| the net, thank you, and will stop using this browser if it
| tries to make my choices for me.
|
| [1] https://blog.mozilla.org/blog/2021/01/08/we-need-more-
| than-d...
| taf2 wrote:
| Can you provide some references to where you're seeing this. If
| anything they are killing off third party cookies just like
| Apple and Firefox. Also they are making it so even third party
| Javascript is less likely able to track you - meaning
| everything has to be first party. IMO this just means there
| will be a shift in how tracking works. Moving from third party
| tracking scripts you install on your website to using CDN's to
| pull code through or host on your own domain. IMO this means
| you'll be less able to identify when you're being tracked much
| more like how it works today on native apps, e.g. you can't
| tell whether that native app is tracking you.
| jedberg wrote:
| I'm making some logical leaps. They appear to be killing off
| 3rd party cookies just like Apple and Firefox. The difference
| is that Apple and Firefox do not sell an ad product and don't
| have a reputation for tracking your every move on the
| internet. Google on the other hand _does_ have a reputation
| for tracking you through Chrome.
| asdfasgasdgasdg wrote:
| Apple does sell an ad product, although I'm not sure
| whether it has any presence on the web.
| IgorPartola wrote:
| The only use for cookies I can see is authentication. There are
| other ways to authenticate that I have used that have been way
| less burdened by security issues. Store an auth token in local
| storage and transmit it as the Authentication header for example:
| CSRF problems, works with whatever framework you want. Why do we
| still need cookies at all?
| srfvtgb wrote:
| Can you do this without Javascript?
| tomaszs wrote:
| Google is building an internet without WWW, that is for sure:
|
| "Because data are ultimately transferred to the same businesses,
| it can be used to create detailed profiles, said academics. If
| information from a dating app, for example, were shared with the
| same parent company as data from a banking app, it could be
| possible to deduce the sexuality of a bank's customers."
| https://ig.ft.com/mobile-app-data-trackers/
| uniqueid wrote:
| World Wide Google. If a modern person goes with the flow, they
| wind up using Google for every facet of their online life: OS,
| web browser, search, email, youtube watching, personal photos,
| cloud storage, DNS, address book, chat, office suite, wallet...
| I wouldn't entrust my best friend with all that data, let alone
| people over whom I have zero power and have never met.
| figgyc wrote:
| I think one thing overlooked is that Google's supposed rationale
| for providing this service is effectively because they suppose
| that their plans to "more aggressively block fingerprinting" will
| leave advertisers with no other choice.
|
| Personally I find this highly unlikely. The very nature of
| fingerprinting makes it difficult to prevent without some pretty
| severe compromises, and it wouldn't surprise me if advertisers
| enter an arms race with Google instead of caving in.
|
| Of course the economic strategy for Google to avoid that is to
| reduce the price/limits of this service to so low that this isn't
| worth doing, but if the effort Google puts into preventing
| fingerprinting is insufficent then this would lead to a "worst of
| both worlds" situation - Google gets to pseudonymously track the
| internet with their "privacy sandbox", and nefarious
| trackers/advertisers can combine that with fingerprinting to
| create an even more reliable picture of who's who on the
| Internet.
|
| FYI, this[0] appears to be the explainer of what Privacy Sandbox
| actually is, and it's quite vague, presumably because the actual
| implementation details of this would be difficult to determine.
|
| [0] https://github.com/michaelkleber/privacy-model
| SimeVidas wrote:
| Contextual ads don't need cookies. The sooner publishers realize
| that, the better for them.
| AznHisoka wrote:
| If I'm reading an article about the pandemic, I probably don't
| want to see ads selling me face masks. If I'm reading an
| article about the inauguration, I probably don't want ads
| selling me inauguration t-shirts.
|
| I am however more likely to click on ads selling me home
| renovation stuff because they know I've recently bought
| something in Home Depot. Even though I'm not currently on a
| home renovation website.
| dkdk8283 wrote:
| I have never clicked on an ad and bought something.
| AznHisoka wrote:
| Ok you are extrapolating your experience to millions of
| others in the world. Nothing wrong with that but it isn't
| going to give you universal insights since you're a special
| case.
| tux1968 wrote:
| Neither did anyone watching an ad on television, it's not
| just about click-through rate.
| thaeli wrote:
| The most effective ads on me, in terms of intentional click
| through rate (not going to count predatory clicks) are
| contextual ads on specialized sites. This doesn't work well
| for general stuff like news sites, but webcomics that do
| their own ads, or a super focused forum like candlepower or
| head-fi? Contextual ads are ideal there.
|
| Second most effective are platform-specicic hypertargeted
| ads, such as Facebook ads. Lot of misses there too, but their
| first party targeting is good to the point of actually giving
| me some interesting content.
|
| In practice the third party "contextual" ads mostly are
| misses for me. Wow, another ad for the home improvement thing
| I either researched and bought last month, or that I was
| looking up on a whim and don't have any intention of actually
| purchasing.
| ubercow13 wrote:
| You've just given two bad examples, contrasted with one good
| example, to prove your point. Pick a good example of a
| contextual ad and a bad example of a personalised ad (there
| are many) and the proof is reversed.
| AznHisoka wrote:
| Except that my example is more the more popular scenario.
| Pageviews of general news site surpass pageviews of niche
| websites about a specific topic. Just go look at the top
| visited websites.
| mcbits wrote:
| Maybe some articles just shouldn't have ads at all. That
| would be refreshing. Sites publishing ad-supported content
| obviously need to put the ads somewhere, but that doesn't
| mean every single article needs its own revenue stream to
| justify its existence.
| AznHisoka wrote:
| I agree - that's a whole separate argument though. If the
| argument is contextual vs personalized, personalized wins
| imo
| cblconfederate wrote:
| They do. You can turn off personalized ads in adsense, but it
| still requires cookie consent
| Nextgrid wrote:
| That's an implementation issue. There's no technical reason
| why a non-targeted ad needs tracking other than Google still
| trying to stalk people.
| tsimionescu wrote:
| There is nothing your client can do (other than blocking ads
| entirely) that would stop a company from serving you car ads
| on a car site - that's contextual ads.
|
| Personalized ads are the opposite - you're browsing a fashion
| site, but you'll get car commercials because you've been
| visiting car commercials lately.
| input_sh wrote:
| > (other than blocking ads entirely)
|
| Easily avoidable in such case. You just need to do two
| things:
|
| 1. Serve them from your own domain where the URL pattern
| isn't obvious (so not something like example.com/ads/ad1).
|
| 2. Randomise HTML elements (div names, classes, a random
| amount of empty divs in between).
|
| Voila, ad-blocks are useless now.
| cratermoon wrote:
| Everyone in adtech, except perhaps Google, is worried. One non-
| Google player I know is seriously concerned about what the
| cookie-less web means or online ads. Essentially the entire
| online advertising industry, both publishers and advertisers, is
| built on 3rd-party cookies.
|
| The goal: to show you only ads for things you care about and are
| likely to buy and be influenced by advertising for, is good. But
| the reality is a mess.
|
| Some of the downsides of Google's proposal are obvious, given its
| position, but there's at least one downside that users might
| notice: lots more ads targeted only by the demographic of the
| publication, making the web look more like print media or TV and
| presenting you and me with a lot more space on our screens wasted
| showing ads for things you don't care about.
|
| As for the "fingerprinting" proposals? Bad. Very Bad. Think
| digital "facial" recognition bad.
| throwaway189262 wrote:
| Advertising was around for thousands of years before tracking.
| The fear is that they won't make as much money and will have to
| go back to how they did it before all the privacy invasion.
| Very sad indeed.
|
| It's easy really, you just put ads on sites visited by your
| target market. That's how advertising was always done before
| Gattica style snooping was involved.
|
| Individually targeted advertising needs to be illegal. It's bad
| for society.
| 1propionyl wrote:
| It's not unreasonable to think that a lot of current digital
| ad spend is 1) an arms race for slices of a pre-existing
| attention pie that also resembles a protection racket, 2) a
| huge waste of money.
|
| There have been a couple of natural experiments showing #2
| where entire digital ad spends were slashed at once with
| little to no impact.
|
| As for #1, look at where a massive chunk of Google's revenue
| comes from: companies trying to squat their own name and
| similar keywords to prevent some competitor's product from
| showing up next to their own.
| tonyedgecombe wrote:
| _The goal: to show you only ads for things you care about and
| are likely to buy and be influenced by advertising for, is
| good._
|
| No, that's bad. The last thing I want is to be influenced by
| adverts.
| tomComb wrote:
| I'd rather be influenced by relevant ads that could possibly
| be useful than ones that will just annoy me.
|
| And I'd rather not make ads less effective because that would
| mean either more ads or fewer publishers.
| passivate wrote:
| The Ad matching service gets paid when you buy something,
| regardless of whether it is relevant, useful or needed by
| you. What is effective for you, and effective for the ad
| network are two separate things. Also, ads by their very
| nature are designed to manipulate you into buying a
| product. The more personal information they have, the
| easier it is to manipulate you. Maybe you're still OK with
| that, but many people think that this is the wrong
| direction for the web.
| amelius wrote:
| > I'd rather be influenced by relevant ads that could
| possibly be useful than ones that will just annoy me.
|
| It's easier to ignore ads that are totally irrelevant.
|
| The ads that are targeted are the most distracting.
|
| I'd rather see ads about some detergent than about a new
| SSD drive that will catch my attention and makes me forget
| what I was looking for in the first place. When I need a
| new SSD, I will just visit a shop. I don't need ads for
| that.
| bluGill wrote:
| But i'm happen to need a better mousetrap and so if you
| can in some way let me know you are selling one I'll be
| glad to take a chance in yours.
|
| Sure I can ignore ads for feminine supplies (as a male
| they are obviously useless to me), but I'd prefer if I
| didn't have to.
| amelius wrote:
| This is a silly argument. Don't you think you'll have a
| much better chance of finding a better mouse trap by
| actively searching Google for it than by waiting for some
| targeted ads to come by?
| drusepth wrote:
| I almost always hold off on purchases for a few days to
| compare what I eventually put in my cart (if anything) to
| ad-served competitors. There's usually very little
| overlap with them and the products I was already looking
| through, so it's a nice additional avenue of shopping
| around. Sometimes the ads include discounts/promotions as
| well, which is an added bonus.
| bquest2 wrote:
| Let's say that your search for mouse traps comes back
| with the classic type that kills.
|
| Wouldn't it be better that you see an ad for a no kill
| mouse trap that you didn't even know was a thing? Ads can
| sometimes inform people about products that they didn't
| even think existed.
| amelius wrote:
| But a Google search is specifically designed to solve
| this problem. Targeted ads, however, also could mislead,
| distract, cause overconsumption, and invade your privacy.
|
| And if there was a better mouse trap, then any salesman
| would quickly learn about it (e.g. at business
| conferences etc), so you could just go to a shop and ask.
|
| Finally, if you really insist that targeted ads are
| superior to anything else, then you could just opt-in to
| a service that provides ads. And you could tell the
| service all your private details so it knows how to
| better serve you (without the service having to guess at
| it).
|
| Just don't assume that someone else needs targeted ads to
| have a fulfilling life.
| tomjen3 wrote:
| Not if you don't know that the better mouse trap was even
| possible. You are not going to search for "breathable,
| waterproof shoes" if you don't know GoreTex is a thing.
|
| Granted somewhere in the last 20 years we have mostly
| stopped innovating and started optimizing and so now you
| get ads for branded Skinner boxes (sorry, free to play
| mobile games) rather than, say, cancer cures but if there
| were innovating products worth buying, you wouldn't
| search for them because you wouldn't even be able to
| imagine them.
| JoshTriplett wrote:
| Why pick _either_ of those alternatives? Block all ads,
| whether "relevant" or not, so they don't compete for your
| valuable attention.
|
| > And I'd rather not make ads less effective because that
| would mean either more ads or fewer publishers.
|
| I'd rather make ads so ineffective that they go away
| entirely. Some publishers will find a way to adapt.
| tsimionescu wrote:
| Exactly! Even for free market believers, ads are just a way
| of manipulating consumers so that they are less rational, and
| so they are a distortion of the market (in favor of the
| biggest players, of course, as they can spend the most on
| advertising).
| freeone3000 wrote:
| As opposed to the current advertisements, which are for... A
| mobile game? Another mobile game. A behavioral science app. A
| hyperspecific ad for a watch based on a video game I played,
| which would be cool but is useless because I have already
| bought _that exact watch_. An ad for an armored personnel
| carrier.
|
| Please. Individual targeted ads are _worse_ than content-based
| ads.
| tomjen3 wrote:
| I fell left out because I want an ad for an armored personnel
| carrier - I won't need it, but at least that ad would be for
| something cool.
|
| Honestly it feels like there haven't been any decent
| innovations in a long time. Aside from Apple producing an ARM
| laptop that doesn't suck I can't really think about what the
| last product I was excited for was.
| choeger wrote:
| Wait a second. An armored personnel carrier? What's the
| conversion funnel here? Do they send it to you? Do you get a
| discount if you equip your own personal motorized infantry
| battalion? Is there an update channel for anti-air?
| MattGaiser wrote:
| I get all sorts of ads from defense contractors when I am
| in Ottawa, the capital of Canada.
|
| I think they are just intending to target
| lobbyists/politicians.
| konjin wrote:
| >presenting you and me with a lot more space on our screens
| wasted showing ads for things you don't care about.
|
| As opposed to the ads for toilet seats from that one time I
| bought a toilet seat online 6 months ago.
|
| If anything forcing adds to be dumb will mean that we get high
| quality publications in niches again. If you sell model ships
| advertising on model-ships-magazine.com actually incentivizes a
| quality site that is interested in furthering the hobby and
| keeps your dumb smart ads from clogging up the rest of my life.
| 1propionyl wrote:
| > ...there's at least one downside that users might notice:
| lots more ads targeted only by the demographic of the
| publication, making the web look more like print media or TV...
|
| ...this is bad? Sounds great to me.
|
| > ...showing ads for things you don't care about.
|
| This is what targeted advertising already accomplishes: showing
| me ads for things (or equivalents of things) I already own.
| Either that or things so wildly off base I have to wonder if
| the targeting works at all.
| vishwajeetv wrote:
| Unfortunately, their own single-sign on services require us to
| have cookies enabled for client implementations (firebase auth),
| that remains the only reason to keep using cookies on the webapps
| I build.
| sleavey wrote:
| What's to stop a website gradually querying different API data on
| each page load to build up a profile with the same amount of
| information as before? Will browsers only allow the first N API
| accesses forever more? Oh, interesting... lots of nasty mistakes
| can be made by websites picking a bad set of APIs early on.
|
| However it works, I don't trust it if it's coming from Google.
| I'll keep my multiple layers of ad blockers enabled.
| [deleted]
| TLightful wrote:
| Good.
|
| May be the most important thing google have done in decades.
|
| Granted. Ive not read the article, so this could be a steaming
| pile of ... but I'm hopeful.
| BayAreaEscapee wrote:
| I often find that the HN comments are more helpful than the
| article itself. If I read a bit of an article and it doesn't
| get to the point quickly, I just close it and start reading the
| HN comments.
| throw14082020 wrote:
| I see whats going on here. One ignoramus to another.
| duckfang wrote:
| There is a potential counter here by everybody not google. Run a
| browser string check, and redirect people to Firefox.
|
| Google is being blatantly anticompetitive, and significantly
| abusing monopoly status to further monopolies elsewhere. And the
| govt won't come to help in any near future, so it's up to the
| rest of us to back them off.
|
| (Now, why firefox? Well, its not because FF allows better
| tracking, but instead that nobody gets the tracking benefit. It's
| not a 'screw users with FF', but 'screw Goog with no metrics'.)
| izacus wrote:
| How does redirecting people to a browser who actively blocks
| tracking help publishers who want to track the crap out of you?
| :)
| throw14082020 wrote:
| Like you rightfully implied in your last paragraph, there is no
| incentive for websites to ask people to go to firefox. So they
| won't do it.
|
| I see companies siding with Google because they'll need to, to
| survive or grow, in the short run anyway.
| bobbydreamer wrote:
| So httpOnly and secure flags are not that secure in cookies.
| newbie578 wrote:
| I actually really like this idea. I trust Google the most out of
| all the other players, since they have the most to lose...
|
| If Apple can have everything built around a single ID and be
| praised for it's ecosystem, I don't see a reason why Google
| shouldn't try, especially since there are people who like Google
| more than Apple.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2021-01-17 23:00 UTC)