Hacker News Reader

Comment by tempest_tech | Hacker News Reader

Hey everyone. We just built a chromium-based browser called uBlock Browser to keep uBlock Origin running without Manifest V3 restrictions. It’s lightweight and privacy-friendly. We’d love to hear your feedback!

View on HN

I think the disclaimer that you’re not affiliated with the uBlock Origin project is too low down on the page. It really just looks like an official project until you scroll, and even then the text is easy to miss.

I would move the disclaimer up higher and maybe remove some of the uBlock branding to make it more obvious that it’s not affiliated. Plus, it seems the browser could be used by more extensions that would be affected by MV3, so maybe it would be better to do a rebrand anyways.

Anyways, that’s just my two cents. Good look with the project, looks like you have a great start!

Thanks for the feedback! You’re absolutely right — many extensions have been affected, and we’re open to helping out. We focused on uBO specifically because many of us have used it and felt like something meaningful was being pushed aside by Google, with little that could be done to prevent it from within Chrome itself. That’s how we came up with the idea to build something dedicated that still feels familiar to users.

Beyond the fact that there are some pretty clear license violations here that will get you shut down instantly, doesn't the idea of an entire browser centered around a single plugin just seem bad?

I get it, modern internet without an adblocker sucks, I use UBO as well. But you want to build an maintain a browser just for UBO? Why not use firefox in that case?

We didn’t create the browser with commercial success in mind — there’s no monetisation associated with it. Our goal is to address a practical problem faced by uBO Chrome users in a way we can. If it gains sufficient traction among them, and not only, we’d consider it a successful initiative.

Of course, using Firefox is a choice we fully respect. This project was created in the spirit of offering users users with more options.

Thats not how licensing works.... You are using UBO's likeness without their permission. Commercial success does not affecting licensing requirements.

Also it seems like your company makes custom browsers, and you put your company name on it, so this is effectively an ad for you, which means success of this browser will be commercially beneficial to you.

> We didn’t create the browser with commercial success in mind

Then where's the source? And why are you making white-label browsers?

Taking bets on how long until Chromium becomes proprietary now.

Yeah I view the usage of chromium as a negative not a positive

Firefox/Gecko is sadly no better now (see their despicable stance on Private Click Measurement). The only alternatives on the horizon are Ladybird and Servo, and they are both at least 2 years from prime time.

I doubt they need to, really.

The browser market is essentially:

64% Chrome. Installed by default on Android, also popular on desktop.

22% Safari. Installed by default and impossible to change on iOS

5% Edge. Installed by default on Windows, and pushed aggressively.

3% Samsung. Installed by default on Samsung devices.

2% Firefox

3% Other

Opera, Brave and suchlike don't appear to be threatening Chrome's market dominance. Why cut them off, when they're helping keep competition law regulators asleep?

You can change away from safari on iOS for a while now.

https://www.linuxfoundation.org/press/linux-foundation-annou...

At some point Google is going to remove Manifest V2 code from Chromium, and few browser packagers will be able to maintain a fork preserving MV2 availability. Will the Linux Foundation work to address this? The announcement is light on details as to what actual projects they plan on supporting.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com