Gruber makes an assumption that the only thing that third party cookies are used for is ad networks and tracking. A whole bunch of common (especially the new social tools) you use rely on third party cookies.
Its not 3rd party cookies to blame, its their use. There are legitimate uses for third party cookies. If I care about blocking ad networks, I use an ad blocker. I just dont go ahead and limit the functionality that these cookies offer.
> Gruber makes an assumption that the only thing that third party cookies are used for is ad networks and tracking.
I think it'd be more fair to say that this particular use-case is the one that he's emphasising. And, in the context of privacy, it's the one that regular users are going to care about the most.
> If I care about blocking ad networks, I use an ad blocker. I just dont go ahead and limit the functionality that these cookies offer.
That might work for you, as an individual, but Apple couldn't do it without copping a lot of flak. Imagine if they suddenly blocked ads by default—the web would go crazy.
I would posit a guess that there are more sites out there that need ad revenue to survive than there are sites that need third-party cookies to survive.
More people want their FB likes than you know. If you dont want, you should not start generalizing that the mass population doesnt. Also, half your favorite sites will disappear without those evil ad networks. A large number of people choose ad driven products than subscribing/paying for a service.
The question, I suppose is why I need to opt-out of these 'legitimate uses'? Why is the assumption that I'd like to freely give my browsing history to everyone that throws together an ad network or social site of the month? How are +1 and Like buttons any better than DoubleClick?
Its not 3rd party cookies to blame, its their use. There are legitimate uses for third party cookies. If I care about blocking ad networks, I use an ad blocker. I just dont go ahead and limit the functionality that these cookies offer.