Just the fastest and most ergonomic browser I've tried.
I wish Firefox was like Brave, to be honest. Until that happens, I'll stick to Brave for both mobile and desktop.
I wish Firefox was like Brave, to be honest. Until that happens, I'll stick to Brave for both mobile and desktop.
Oh. You didn't? Then what are you complaining about?
Not since the early 2000s when browsers were infested with random toolbars have I seen so much shady spam in a web browser.
* The wallet is enabled by default.
* The new tab page shows crypto ads by default. I couldn't figure out how to opt-out of these despite a couple of minutes in the "customize dashboard" menu. I know the option exists, but it's well-hidden.
* The BAT rewards icon is enabled by default, as well as the new tab card, as well as injected tip buttons on Github, Reddit, and Twitter.
* BAT rewards itself is not enabled by default, but there are no less than 3 distinct notifications asking me to enable it.
* Brave news is not enabled, but again there are multiple requests to enable it hidden throughout various menus. It's also not clear how Brave news interacts with Brave rewards. If I only enable news, do I still get the in-feed ads without the reward sharing, or is the news feed ad-free, or will only certain ad channels be shown?
So no, the crypto stuff is not opt-in. It's mostly opt-out with the BAT rewards program specifically being opt-in.
Most people referring to the "crypto stuff" are talking about that program where you get an ad every once in a while and get some crypto for viewing it. I'm certainly not a fan of it, and would not use (let alone recommend) Brave, if it was imposed.
Now I have no problem with their search engine if it is good. Alternatives are definitely needed. If they start pushing their token through it or weighing results based on the token in some way I might think again.
Customize->Background image. Has a total of two switches. One for background images at all, the other for sponsored background images. Turn the second one off.
I have Brave installed as an alternate browser (originally because sites like Twitch and Netflix performed poorly on Firefox, not so much the case anymore). And there's a noticeable lag when switching tabs that's absent in Firefox. And the memory usage - Brave uses as much memory with 10 tabs open as Firefox does with 100. It seems like "unloaded" tabs are not really unloaded at all, and continue to take up memory (which makes you question what unloading does) as long as the browser remains open.
I'm not sure what you mean by ergonomic, but I've been spoiled by Firefox's openness to customization, it was shocking to find that you can't even customize the toolbar on Brave to have your frequently used features handy.
It was a movement that used the existing mechanism to promote a law they wanted, not a mob trying to get their way by shouting down others.
You may not like how the process works, but it works the same for everyone. Trying to smear the ones you don't agree with as not legitimate doesn't work, because it's the process that you're smearing.
It sounds like your biggest priority in determining ethicality is legality: did anything illegal happen in the "cancellation" of the Brave founder? (I know nothing about this event, I'm just commenting within the context of this short conversation).
If not, how then are you determining one method being better than another?
If there is a legal and approved method for getting a law, why is forming a mob the same as using the official method?
I'm actually not even sure anymore what you mean by "legal and approved method for getting a law." Maybe you're talking about how some places like California have a process for petition > law proposition > law being put directly on the ballot? Not all states have that and as far as I know the usa congress has nothing like that. In fact when it comes to federal law the only way I'm aware of for citizens to get a law they want in the end always comes down to some kind of mob formation.
Anyway the meaning of the word "official" matters as well. The USA's founding documents state an intent that the authority of the government derives from the people. There's thus no difference between a government's rubber stamped "official process," and a crowd of people in city hall shouting.
By using Firefox you support Mozilla, so you support the CEO financing political campaigns you don’t agree with. The CEO is a special role that represents Mozilla.
It’s simple, the guy had to go.
[1] - https://web.archive.org/web/20200708202554/https://brendanei...
I use Firefox because it's a functional browser with the best uBlock Origin support. Whatever political campaigns the guy in charge contributes to is not a factor, it's not even something I think about at all. I shouldn't even have to know who's in charge, if that information ever comes up it's probably a sign something's wrong.
> It’s simple, the guy had to go.
Mozilla is clearly worse off for it. Looks like the guy went and made another browser and now it's eating at Firefox's market share. Kind of ironic.
I do think choosing to live in a society does come with SOME social responsibilities though, don't you? Most we probably don't think about all that much, like not farting in public or whatever. Not scratching our crotches in public. Not cutting in lines. Stuff with no legal boundaries but are just general social responsibilities.
What's to be like the Brave browser for you? You don't say much.
Mozilla is so dysfunctional that the CEO is rewarded a massive bonus for running the company to the ground and laying off their employees.
They are not interested in competing against Chrome; instead they are chronically dependent on Google's money and on life support, making over 80% of their revenue despite the Mozilla CEO saying that they would not fully depend on Google's money. in the future. [0]
I hope Brave makes Firefox (and Mozilla) even more irrelevant.
[0] https://web.archive.org/web/20120105090543/https://www.compu...
I get that you hate Mozilla, but from the perspective of an end user of browsers, this is a deeply irrational position. Less competition in the browser space is uniformly bad for end users, as we've seen very clearly in the past.
I still hope we can manage to break up Google before that happens so anything that delays Googles cornering of the browser market is a win in my eyes.
As to Mozilla, their combination of incompetence, user-hostility, and complete dependence on Google renders them controlled opposition at best. They are not a serious player in the browser space, continuing to treat them like one is directing limited resources and mind share into a failing enterprise.
It's more surprising that Mozilla survives at all (and likely at Google's mercy with default placement payment) since the only other browsers who can hope to compete have massive subsidies from a larger business.
Salaries and benefits - management & general: 81 million
https://assets.mozilla.net/annualreport/2021/mozilla-fdn-202...
Firefox on desktop has been more than good enough anyway.
They still spin off massive amounts of cash -- they just piss it away on their foundation, and not improving the product.
My recollection was that Microsoft had stopped innovating on IE6 almost entirely during that decade, right? Or at least for the few years that enabled Firefox to get a foothold.
> They still spin off massive amounts of cash -- they just piss it away on their foundation, and not improving the product.
Hard agree on this. So many side quests when the main quest is not done.
Let's not go this far. Mozilla getting its shit together will only benefit us.
Having stopped Firefox users from browsing the net with infinite verification loops, Cloudflare finds their unbiased estimation of internet browser usage shows Firefox is in decline.
It seems we're all relying on Apple/Safari to provide that Chromium alternative.
Also Ctrl + B to show the bookmarks sidebar would be nice, for those of us who nest their web clippings deeply.
On the iOS app, it also forgets usernames I’ve stored using password sync. For some sites (criteria unclear) I have to type the username before it inserts the password, which is frustrating to a privacy conscious user who will not use the same email address everywhere.
I want to like it but there are power user pleasing areas where it certainly lags behind Firefox.
Regarding iOS, it's entirely possible there's a bug in our code. I'll definitely take a closer look and speak with the team regarding this report. That said, it's also not entirely uncommon for users to enter a site through a slightly different URL, or form, which complicates the credential-autofill logic. If you have an example or two of sites where this behavior is consistently observed, that would be much appreciated.
The two recent culprits that didn't toggle password autofill were eBay.co.uk and Gumtree.co.uk. I'd be grateful it if this could be investigated; the latter prevented me from checking an address in the Gumtree PMs whilst on the road delivering a purchase.
On the issue of sending multiple tabs, it is frustrating enough that it prevents me from adopting Brave as my main browser. I often open a few sites that interest me on mobile then decide to read more on my desktop. If you could pass the word along for someone to investigate that, all the better.
With that said, it's commendable being the only browser on iOS with first class advert blocking & sync with every other platform.
But yeah, that's one of their biggest issues
Vivaldi's fine, and it's what I'd use if Brave didn't exist, but I just like the experience of using Brave more, especially on desktop. Vivaldi's new mobile version, from what I've seen, has clarified their old mobile UI a lot and got background media playback, so that's less of an issue.
But I still really miss Opera from the old days. Vivaldi is the next best thing.