Hacker News Reader

Comment by shp0ngle | Hacker News Reader

I don't want to be so alarmist, but... haven't Brave kind of eaten Firefox lunch here?

Yes, Brave subtly pushes some crypto nonsense, but it also delivers on privacy, it focuses where it matters. (It also bundles IPFS and Tor in the base install, I believe.)

And you can say "oh it's still Chrome!" but - Chromium is FOSS, and to me, it shows that Brave focus on what matters (data privacy) and not on what doesn't (writing their own HTML, CSS, JS engine).

I don't agree with the opinion that browser needs to have its own rendering engine to be able to be focused on privacy. I think it's the opposite - using Chrome engine helps Brave to focus on what matters.

But it's just me. It's fun to build own browser engine, I get it, I just don't know if it's time and money well spent.

View on HN

> It's fun to build own browser engine, I get it, I just don't know if it's time and money well spent.

It's not about fun, it's about denying Google the right to exercise complete control over the way that the web evolves. Having independent browser engines with substantial market share is the only path to a web that isn't just an extension of Google, and we shouldn't be relying on Apple alone to bear that weight.

That said, the success of this strategy for containing Google depends on having market share, which Mozilla's recent strategies have completely failed to do, but that has less to do with their independence than it does with Mozilla's focusing on just about anything other than Firefox.

The Edge browser sometimes holds features back even though they are based on chromium source code. For example AV1 support, so there is some kind of diversity of browsers possible even though the people who code it all up have power.. but they have power because they create features which is deserved.

A fork with features removed is better than nothing, but not as good as an independent implementation. A fork has to weigh the risks of becoming too far out of sync with mainline—if it vetoes too often it can become difficult or impossible to merge in future fixes from upstream. An independent implementation, on the other hand, can make a call on each feature individually based on the value and the risks.

it's the same thing in the end: Firefox weighs pros and cons of implementing a feature and Edge weighs pros and cons of including a feature. It is still true though that Google has more power when everyone depends on their implementation especially because it's the path of least resistance to include everything and change nothing. And yes that means it could be more work if you choose to change something.

> especially because it's the path of least resistance to include everything and change nothing

It's only the path of least resistance for a chromium fork. For Firefox it takes a lot of work to implement a feature, which means the value proposition has to be really good for it to make it in.

And you can say "oh it's still Chrome!" but - Chromium is FOSS, and to me, it shows that Brave focus on what matters (data privacy) and not on what doesn't (writing their own HTML, CSS, JS engine)

but avoiding a browser monoculture does matter. having all browsers built on chromium is a serious problem given the way google treats chrome. see the latest decisions regarding extension support and adblocking all of which will end up in chromium. do you think brave will have the resources to fork chromium to avoid those changes?

Pick your battles... easier to cherrypick your own stuff on top of already existing codebase. At least you need to worry only about a small patchset rather than own rendering and js engine just for a very abstract concept of "avoiding monoculture", and instead of focusing on CSS rules and JS optimization and whatnot, you can focus on things that matter for your goals

it's not my fight though. If Mozilla thinks burning all these resources on their own engine is a good thing then, burn ahead. there are worst things to burn money on in the end. and it's not my money...

At least rust came out of all that.

But firefox works fine for me, and if the can continue to make a quality browser then they should keep doing it.

Having an independent engine is not necessarily about privacy, it's about... Well, independence. If Google gets away with Blink being the only viable engine, they can push any bullshit they want (e.g. WEI) and we'll have to live with it. A Chromium-only future is one where "the web" is just another name for Google's walled garden.

> Blink being the only viable engine

Don't forget Apple devices, which use a different engine. Until very recently (or very soon?), iPhones could not use Blink, afaik.

pushing manifest v3 will become a fond, quaint memory if google goes completely unchallenged.

Praising Brave is an unpopular opinion on HN. Yet many of us myself included (silently) use and enjoy Brave.

I too lost interest in Firefox a long time ago, about the time they evicted Brendan Eich revealing internal politics.

One of the things I like about Brave (it's been my daily driver for years now) is that it lets me give the gift of The Internet I Experience to non-technical folks like my mom.

Most people are just... inundated with ads. Try using a stock Chrome with no ad blockers for just a day. It's absolutely miserable. But every time you add another "setup" step you add potential breakage.

Now, I can just give someone Brave and they can have the same experience most of us do on HN!

It hasn’t in the sense that barely anyone uses Brave.

If trends continue (of course no guarantee they will) it looks like Brave might surpass Firefox's market share in the next few years

Brave’s usage curve is still going up and the MAU is approaching 70 million. Firefox has another 115 million monthly active users. By Chrome’s numbers either is barely used.

https://bravebat.info/brave_browser_active_users

That isn't alarmist, but almost all privacy features in Brave are already in Firefox as well. Looking at this page:

- Chromium customizations: Not necessary in Firefox

- Client-side encryption for Brave Sync: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/how-firefox-sync-keeps-...

- DeAMPing: I think AMP has been dead for a few years now

- Limiting network server calls: I think this is a bit tangential to privacy, limiting calls is generally good but it doesn't mean you're transmitting less information. Brave's post comparing different browsers' first startup network calls is from 2019, not sure how Firefox performs today.

- Query parameter filtering: https://firefox-source-docs.mozilla.org/toolkit/components/a...

- Better partitioning for better privacy: https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/Privacy/State_P...

- Referrer policy improvements: https://blog.mozilla.org/security/2021/03/22/firefox-87-trim...

- Fine grained / temporary permissions API: This is nice, I don't think Firefox has this.

- Social media blocking: https://support.mozilla.org/en-US/kb/enhanced-tracking-prote...

- Bounce tracking protections: https://blog.mozilla.org/security/2020/08/04/firefox-79-incl...

- Limiting the life of Javascript: https://blog.mozilla.org/en/products/firefox/firefox-rolls-o.... Not explicitly mentioned but I believe Firefox does have this 7 day limit as well, in addition to other protections.

- Private windows with Tor: Firefox doesn't have built-in Tor integration, but the actual Tor Browser is built from Firefox.

I think Firefox also has one or two features that Brave does not, like Multi-Account Containers, and some paid services like https://relay.firefox.com/.

IMHO the best selling point for Brave is on Android because it's Chrome with a built-in ad-blocker. Firefox was always noticeably slower than Chrome on Android. They were usually on par on desktop except for the occasional website that would lock up the JavaScript engine and freeze Firefox.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com