Or, you know, just use ungoogled-chromium? I mean, they bloated the flagship product to sell a slim alternative. This fact, by itself, is a red flag for me.
the way I took it is that it's more for supporting brave than for actually removing the bloat. removing the bloat is just a bonus, similar to merch, otherwise it doesn't make much sense
the way I took it is that it's more for supporting brave than for actually removing the bloat. removing the bloat is just a bonus, similar to merch, otherwise it doesn't make much sense
My thoughts exactly. I avoid the free browser already for this reason. I sure as hell would never financially support them and that's aside from the fact that I would be getting nothing for my...
My thoughts exactly. I avoid the free browser already for this reason. I sure as hell would never financially support them and that's aside from the fact that I would be getting nothing for my dollar except a version of the browser that the browser should have always been
I didn't mean people should buy it or that they should support brave, I'm just saying that this is another way for them to make money. I agree with you
I didn't mean people should buy it or that they should support brave, I'm just saying that this is another way for them to make money. I agree with you
You don't understand, anti-LGBT, COVID-denying cryptobro CEO millionaires have it real tough out there. They have to put up with reasonable people like ourselves making fun of them for being...
You don't understand, anti-LGBT, COVID-denying cryptobro CEO millionaires have it real tough out there. They have to put up with reasonable people like ourselves making fun of them for being terrible human beings. I hear he has to wipe his tears every night with $100 bills because of all the mean things said about him on the internet. Surely, they are the most oppressed class of people on this planet.
Like, what do you even expect them to do? Stop being insufferable jackasses? That's too much I say!
I'm curious. What do you propose browsers make money from? Chrome, Safari and Edge are used push the owner's agenda. (eg. improved energy efficiency so that they can claim that their product can...
I'm curious. What do you propose browsers make money from?
Chrome, Safari and Edge are used push the owner's agenda. (eg. improved energy efficiency so that they can claim that their product can browse the web longer, nudging people to Bing, test non-standard protocols like GQUIC, unilaterally requires specific SSL certificate lifetime)
Firefox, Vivaldi and Waterfox take search engine deal, then they're unable to block ads on those search engine by default
Brave, Opera, Edge and Vivaldi ship bloatware in the browser
Orion from Kagi wants users' money directly, but they risk that one misstep can immediately decrease their revenue (like how people canceled Kagi after they announced Yandex integration). I believe
Other smaller browser projects are run by smaller team or volunteers (low bus factor) and take most features from other browsers. This can be an issue if they are not aligned with those browsers' roadmap (eg. Waterfox doesn't like that Firefox removed XUL, but eventually they are unable to maintain it themselves. Manifest V2 were removed by Chrome and most Chromium forks do not have its own extension store to host MV2 extensions)
I'm ok with charging for software. The issue is with Brave, since: Their offer is a bad one, and contradicts its flagship (bloated) product. If I want a slim browser, ungoogled-chromium is...
I'm ok with charging for software. The issue is with Brave, since:
Their offer is a bad one, and contradicts its flagship (bloated) product. If I want a slim browser, ungoogled-chromium is arguably better;
As presented in other replies in this thread, Brave is a business with a questionable track record, so (for me) donating to them, even as a regular transaction in disguise, is a no go.
At the start of the year, Brave announced that they're looking to make Brave Origin available. It'll be Brave, except with all the crapware features removed. Brave Origin now have launched in the...
At the start of the year, Brave announced that they're looking to make Brave Origin available. It'll be Brave, except with all the crapware features removed.
Brave Origin now have launched in the nightly version, with the release version scheduled to launch in early June. It has one-time purchase price of $60, with 10 activation limit that they have said you can contact support to reset. (The activation system is not tied to an account, so they need to limit it to prevent abuse)
Alternatively, Linux users can activate Brave Origin for free and users can use group policies to disable features in the same way Origin did it.
Origin will have two variants:
Standalone: Separate installer. Bloatware features are permanently compiled out (not available on mobile)
Upgrade: Activate the Origin key in your existing Brave to get a page that you can selectively disable bloatware, with all features disabled by default and future features will be opt-in. (available on all platforms)
The features disabled by Origin currently are: Telemetry, Leo, News, Playlist (iOS), Rewards, Speedreader, Talk, Tor, VPN, Wallet, Wayback Machine, Web Discovery Project. Some of those features can already be disabled in the interface, but the menu option will remains. Origin should entirely remove the menu.
I think at some point I've saw on the checkout page that Brave Search Premium is also included, as the browser will block the ads. However, it is not on the page now and current Brave policy is that the default blocking level do not block first party content so sponsored ads in Brave Search still remains.
Upgrade: Activate the Origin key in your existing Brave to get a page that you can selectively disable bloatware, with all features disabled by default and future features will be opt-in. (available on all platforms)
It's funny, because I would block much less aggressively if more ads were served first party. For one thing, first parties have an incentive not to allow malware to spread, although we could...
policy is that the default blocking level do not block first party content
It's funny, because I would block much less aggressively if more ads were served first party. For one thing, first parties have an incentive not to allow malware to spread, although we could debate how strong that incentive is, because it's their name / brand at the top of the page. Second, ad servers are so, so slow. It's absurd how long pages take to completely render when the ad blocker is turned off.
I`m just thinking out. Brave and Vivaldi both chromium based. In both browsers crapware is disabled at maximum. Vivaldi is free, but not strictly opensource, its source-available. I`m pretty sure...
I`m just thinking out.
Brave and Vivaldi both chromium based.
In both browsers crapware is disabled at maximum.
Vivaldi is free, but not strictly opensource, its source-available.
I`m pretty sure that Vivaldi is much more customizable than Brave.
Anyway, I`m pretty happy that now we have new alternative, and I really-really love one-time purchase financial model.
I use Vivaldi when I am on Linux/Windows but generally the bugginess is from the UI customizations it supports. I don't use any of those customizations, so it feels like a bit of a drag on my...
I use Vivaldi when I am on Linux/Windows but generally the bugginess is from the UI customizations it supports. I don't use any of those customizations, so it feels like a bit of a drag on my enjoyment of the software. I use it over Brave because of the company behind Brave being sketchy.
What I want from a browser is mostly stability, performance, built in ad blocking, privacy protections. Those are the differentiators I care about.
Firefox based. Most of my work requires Chrome compatibility. Vivaldi is based on Chrome/Chromium, so I just get that out of the box. For the apps I work on less than 0.5% of our users are on FF...
Firefox based. Most of my work requires Chrome compatibility. Vivaldi is based on Chrome/Chromium, so I just get that out of the box.
For the apps I work on less than 0.5% of our users are on FF last time I looked.
Oh, that's definitely! I have feeling that Vivaldi buggines steadily decreasing with each year, but with amount of customization I'm not sure will it ever be on level with other browsers....
Oh, that's definitely! I have feeling that Vivaldi buggines steadily decreasing with each year, but with amount of customization I'm not sure will it ever be on level with other browsers. Personally for me it's ok, it my main browser for last 6 or 7 years.
I wonder why Linux get to use it for free... Maybe they hope that way they'll get more feedback and bug reports? Anyway, the removal of Wayback Machine and Tor make it a lesser product for me, the...
I wonder why Linux get to use it for free... Maybe they hope that way they'll get more feedback and bug reports?
Anyway, the removal of Wayback Machine and Tor make it a lesser product for me, the rest don't bother me since I just keep them turned off.
But if there is a target audience for this version, I'm happy for them
Realistically it's because people that use linux use it because they want to be rid of all this crap in the first place (myself included) so will almost certainly be using a different browser that...
Realistically it's because people that use linux use it because they want to be rid of all this crap in the first place (myself included) so will almost certainly be using a different browser that ensues these ideals, like Firefox and (hopefully soon) Ladybird.
They want more people to use their browser, and there's no chance in hell someone that's already using Firefox is going to be paying for brave, so offering it for free takes it from 0% of people switching, to maybe a few out of curiosity.
I doubt many people in the Linux community will use it. Linux is mostly dominated by Firefox [or it's forks]. Even Microsoft Edge has an official Linux build but I would be surprised if many folks...
I doubt many people in the Linux community will use it. Linux is mostly dominated by Firefox [or it's forks]. Even Microsoft Edge has an official Linux build but I would be surprised if many folks used it as their primary browser.
If they offered it as a paid version on Linux, it is almost certain that no one would use it [read:revenue stream would be very low in any case]. This way, they are likely hoping to remain atleast a viable alternative in the Linux eco-system.
Obligatory reminder that the Brave company is the brainchild of Brendan Eich, inventor of JavaScript and the largest homophobe in Silicon Valley, to the point where Mozilla fired him for this....
Obligatory reminder that the Brave company is the brainchild of Brendan Eich, inventor of JavaScript and the largest homophobe in Silicon Valley, to the point where Mozilla fired him for this.
Obligatory secondary reminder that Brave Browser includes a cryptocurrency mechanism that rewards you with tokens upon viewing ads shown to you on your new tab page.
I can’t imagine why anyone in their right mind would pay money for this. I haven’t the least bit of interest in this.
Let's talk about Brave Ads for a moment! I'm old enough to remember when Brave was announced, and Ads was promoted as the killer feature. It was going to disrupt the whole advertisement industry....
Let's talk about Brave Ads for a moment! I'm old enough to remember when Brave was announced, and Ads was promoted as the killer feature. It was going to disrupt the whole advertisement industry. Ads were no longer going to be a privacy nightmare, a bigger cut was going to end up in the pockets of content creators, and even users themselves were going to receive a decent payout in return for their attention. So...
Are anyone here actually using Brave Ads; as a user, buyer, or creator? What are your experiences with them? Did they succeed in making a better marketing experience for everyone?
Creators could claim their money through a fairly straightforward process. Some chose to do so, some chose not to, and some of those who chose not to were very vocal about their disapproval of the...
Creators could claim their money through a fairly straightforward process. Some chose to do so, some chose not to, and some of those who chose not to were very vocal about their disapproval of the whole concept.
And what happens to the money Brave collected on a creator's behalf that they either chose not to do so or simply did not know that someone else was collecting money on their behalf without their...
And what happens to the money Brave collected on a creator's behalf that they either chose not to do so or simply did not know that someone else was collecting money on their behalf without their knowledge or consent?
This is a bad behavior. Collecting money for someone without their consent, or even knowledge? This concept is bizarre (and maybe illegal in some places?).
This is a bad behavior. Collecting money for someone without their consent, or even knowledge? This concept is bizarre (and maybe illegal in some places?).
Or, you know, just use ungoogled-chromium?
I mean, they bloated the flagship product to sell a slim alternative. This fact, by itself, is a red flag for me.
the way I took it is that it's more for supporting brave than for actually removing the bloat. removing the bloat is just a bonus, similar to merch, otherwise it doesn't make much sense
What is it that Brave offers that is worth "supporting" their anti-LGBT, COVID-denying/anti-masking, cryptobro CEO?
My thoughts exactly. I avoid the free browser already for this reason. I sure as hell would never financially support them and that's aside from the fact that I would be getting nothing for my dollar except a version of the browser that the browser should have always been
I didn't mean people should buy it or that they should support brave, I'm just saying that this is another way for them to make money. I agree with you
You don't understand, anti-LGBT, COVID-denying cryptobro CEO millionaires have it real tough out there. They have to put up with reasonable people like ourselves making fun of them for being terrible human beings. I hear he has to wipe his tears every night with $100 bills because of all the mean things said about him on the internet. Surely, they are the most oppressed class of people on this planet.
Like, what do you even expect them to do? Stop being insufferable jackasses? That's too much I say!
I'm curious. What do you propose browsers make money from?
I'm ok with charging for software. The issue is with Brave, since:
I've never used Brave, but I imagine uBlock Origin is a good (if not better) alternative.
At the start of the year, Brave announced that they're looking to make Brave Origin available. It'll be Brave, except with all the crapware features removed.
Brave Origin now have launched in the nightly version, with the release version scheduled to launch in early June. It has one-time purchase price of $60, with 10 activation limit that they have said you can contact support to reset. (The activation system is not tied to an account, so they need to limit it to prevent abuse)
Alternatively, Linux users can activate Brave Origin for free and users can use group policies to disable features in the same way Origin did it.
Origin will have two variants:
The features disabled by Origin currently are: Telemetry, Leo, News, Playlist (iOS), Rewards, Speedreader, Talk, Tor, VPN, Wallet, Wayback Machine, Web Discovery Project. Some of those features can already be disabled in the interface, but the menu option will remains. Origin should entirely remove the menu.
I think at some point I've saw on the checkout page that Brave Search Premium is also included, as the browser will block the ads. However, it is not on the page now and current Brave policy is that the default blocking level do not block first party content so sponsored ads in Brave Search still remains.
Some one will figure out how to do this for free.
It's funny, because I would block much less aggressively if more ads were served first party. For one thing, first parties have an incentive not to allow malware to spread, although we could debate how strong that incentive is, because it's their name / brand at the top of the page. Second, ad servers are so, so slow. It's absurd how long pages take to completely render when the ad blocker is turned off.
Google/YouTube, and Meta's apps are a contrary point to first party ads. They are riddled with scams and malwares behind a click.
I`m just thinking out.
Brave and Vivaldi both chromium based.
In both browsers crapware is disabled at maximum.
Vivaldi is free, but not strictly opensource, its source-available.
I`m pretty sure that Vivaldi is much more customizable than Brave.
Anyway, I`m pretty happy that now we have new alternative, and I really-really love one-time purchase financial model.
Vivaldi in my experience is a little bit buggier than Brave, but nothing significant.
Vivaldi may be buggier, but its packed with so many incredible features that it balances out.
Not to mention that the company behind it doesn't have the same questionable track record as Brave does.
I use Vivaldi when I am on Linux/Windows but generally the bugginess is from the UI customizations it supports. I don't use any of those customizations, so it feels like a bit of a drag on my enjoyment of the software. I use it over Brave because of the company behind Brave being sketchy.
What I want from a browser is mostly stability, performance, built in ad blocking, privacy protections. Those are the differentiators I care about.
On Mac I've shifted to using Orion from Kagi.
Why not use LibreWolf?
Firefox based. Most of my work requires Chrome compatibility. Vivaldi is based on Chrome/Chromium, so I just get that out of the box.
For the apps I work on less than 0.5% of our users are on FF last time I looked.
Oh, that's definitely! I have feeling that Vivaldi buggines steadily decreasing with each year, but with amount of customization I'm not sure will it ever be on level with other browsers. Personally for me it's ok, it my main browser for last 6 or 7 years.
I wonder why Linux get to use it for free... Maybe they hope that way they'll get more feedback and bug reports?
Anyway, the removal of Wayback Machine and Tor make it a lesser product for me, the rest don't bother me since I just keep them turned off.
But if there is a target audience for this version, I'm happy for them
Realistically it's because people that use linux use it because they want to be rid of all this crap in the first place (myself included) so will almost certainly be using a different browser that ensues these ideals, like Firefox and (hopefully soon) Ladybird.
They want more people to use their browser, and there's no chance in hell someone that's already using Firefox is going to be paying for brave, so offering it for free takes it from 0% of people switching, to maybe a few out of curiosity.
I doubt many people in the Linux community will use it. Linux is mostly dominated by Firefox [or it's forks]. Even Microsoft Edge has an official Linux build but I would be surprised if many folks used it as their primary browser.
If they offered it as a paid version on Linux, it is almost certain that no one would use it [read:revenue stream would be very low in any case]. This way, they are likely hoping to remain atleast a viable alternative in the Linux eco-system.
Obligatory reminder that the Brave company is the brainchild of Brendan Eich, inventor of JavaScript and the largest homophobe in Silicon Valley, to the point where Mozilla fired him for this.
Obligatory secondary reminder that Brave Browser includes a cryptocurrency mechanism that rewards you with tokens upon viewing ads shown to you on your new tab page.
I can’t imagine why anyone in their right mind would pay money for this. I haven’t the least bit of interest in this.
Don't forget COVID-denying, anti-mask cryptobro. It's Chrome for Republicans.
Also they run just another ad network on top of their browser.
Brave basically represents everything that's a negative influence for the internet.
Let's talk about Brave Ads for a moment! I'm old enough to remember when Brave was announced, and Ads was promoted as the killer feature. It was going to disrupt the whole advertisement industry. Ads were no longer going to be a privacy nightmare, a bigger cut was going to end up in the pockets of content creators, and even users themselves were going to receive a decent payout in return for their attention. So...
Are anyone here actually using Brave Ads; as a user, buyer, or creator? What are your experiences with them? Did they succeed in making a better marketing experience for everyone?
Didn't it come out that Brave Ads was collecting money on behalf of creators, without their consent, and without ever actually giving them any money?
Creators could claim their money through a fairly straightforward process. Some chose to do so, some chose not to, and some of those who chose not to were very vocal about their disapproval of the whole concept.
And what happens to the money Brave collected on a creator's behalf that they either chose not to do so or simply did not know that someone else was collecting money on their behalf without their knowledge or consent?
This is a bad behavior. Collecting money for someone without their consent, or even knowledge? This concept is bizarre (and maybe illegal in some places?).
They can't really fix the first one, but Origin directly address the second issue.
Running a different browser entirely fixes both, and it's free for everyone.