[gman83]

I'm curious, with third-party cookies being fased out, and alternatives like FLoC being met with resistance, could this drastically cut the size of Google's revenue's down? If the ads can no longer be accurately targeted, I imagine that would mean the main value of AdWords is no more, and that's the foundation that entire company is built on.

[potatolicious]

It depends on what kind of ads - IMO the sunset of third-party tracking cookies gives an advantage to companies like Google.

Products that target based on actual user intent benefit from cookie blocks, as that cannot be meaningfully blocked ever. (i.e., when you search for "brunch" ads relating to brunch show up)

Products that target based on behavior away from the product will suffer - but morally I'm ok with that.

Google happens to own one of the most intentful products out there - you directly tell the product what you want to see! The main pain for them will be loss of targeting ability in their network ads displayed on 3rd party sites - but their first-party products I suspect will see a boost in the new world.

[t0mas88]

The Doubleclick and YouTube side of Google is also a big part of revenue and both use huge amounts of cookie based targeting.

[yesbabyyes]

Minor correction: AdSense would be the product affected by this. AdWords (now Google Ads) is the ads shown on Google's search result pages, and are contextual (depending on the search). AdSense, AdMob and Google Ad Manager makes up Google's ad network, which accounts for a much smaller part of revenue (about 12%, where AdWords accounts for ~57% and YouTube ads ~10%).

[freeopinion]

Doubleclick did not invent advertising.

Has everyone forgotten OTA broadcast television? Where Geritol spent a fortune advertising on the Lawrence Welk Show? And Kellogs flooded Saturday morning cartoons?

I may be wrong, but I don't think advertisers have boosted their budgets in the age of targeted advertising. Google has done well to replace the old channels for advertising with their own pipeline. For the last twenty years it has mattered which ad platform could more accurately target your demographic. Google has won most of that war. Today, you pay Google whether the ad is targeted or not. So now, they can shift the battlefront to create other barriers to entry. And to keep people dependent on their infrastructure to package and deliver advertising at all.

[fleddr]

I believe the biggest "victim" of the increasing difficulty of cross-site tracking are content websites.

A content website has nothing to sell, assuming it's not behind a paywall. They are typically funded using general purpose tracking ads. The ads are based on other websites you visit and have nothing to do with the content you're reading.

These websites may face a serious threat, and need an entirely different model. The most straight-forward alternative I imagine to be contextual non-tracked ads. Ads related to the content you're reading.

Other victims are to be found in the shady world of data aggregators. Their entire existence is based on cross site tracking.

Whilst websites and data parties may suffer, Google will continue to hoard data. Almost every website will continue to use Google analytics, Google fonts, Google Tag Manager, the like. This on top of the wide array of consumer products you may use: Android, its various Google apps, Gmail, Youtube, all of it.

It's virtually impossible to avoid Google touchpoints, they will continue to know more about you than you do about yourself. They don't need AdWords for that.

[nerdponx]

No. FLoC is part of their future/regulation-proofing and ladder-pulling strategy.