I haven't ever considered it since and I assume many others are in the same boat.
Chrome has stayed incredibly sketchy from the beginning, when Google gained marketshare by sneaking Chrome into the installer for other products that people intentionally downloaded.
Then Chrome did things like "accidentally" uploading your entire browsing history to Google servers when you signed into Gmail.
Now they have declared war on ad blockers, despite the government warning that ad networks are too big a malware vector to ignore.
Still sketchy because of the lack of consent, but people act like Brave personally stole money from them.
The other "sketchy crypto stuff" is one of the few actually workable alternatives to funding websites with ads on webpages. Again, Brave took in no money (BAT) that you as an admin / creator would have otherwise had, and they keep it in escrow, they don't claim it.
The only other sketchy thing I can remember is pre-installing a deactivated VPN so that people could pay, push a button and it'd work immediately. Plenty of companies do hacks like that for the sake of UX. Dropbox used to hack macOS its Accessibility permission so people wouldn't have to dive into settings to toggle certain things.
The irony is that Firefox has had their own scandals like surreptitiously installing a hidden ad extension that would advertise for Mr. Robot, but somehow Firefox stans have erased that kerfuffle from their collective memory.
That isn't what it did.
Zen has other issues for me on Ubuntu (eating a ton of resources) which is why I usually use FF. But I put Zen in a different category from Brave and definitely better than Chrome.
(Work at Mozilla, but not related to this - this is just public info.)
This conclusion doesn't follow your premise. Google has to pay because if Mozilla dies, so does the claim of any real competition on the browser engine market. So everyone agrees Firefox's engine is truly independent. Google pays so Firefox users don't use anything that has to do with Google.
If you think about it, the only real way to not hurt Google is for Firefox to stop existing. Chrome would end up being spun off from Google.
You mean, with reasonable administrations, caring for antitrust laws.
Safari is probably the only one?
My ISP also already sees the servers I connect to, so DNS gives them less additional information than it does to buttflare.
We're the frogs being boiled, over the last decade. People sounded the alarms, but they were looked at like they had tin foil on their heads. Now, it's clear they were right.
I'm speaking generally, of course. I use Firefox for all my personal stuff, except for those situations where it doesn't work.
What things? Looks like an urban myth.
That said, I can only remember two instances of that slightly inconveniencing me in the past, and both times I was inconvenienced by a Google-run website: once upon a time Google Earth refused to work, and once upon a time I couldn't tweak my Google Meet background. Both are no longer the case.
The biggest counterexample I can think of: WebUSB was critical to Chromebooks supporting external devices, but I can see why Safari might not want it. It has Firefox support at last, though.
Is that really something you need a citation on? You sure seem to have come up with an example of your own.
I can think of just one, USB.
Chrome was built on the premise that web standards matter. Remember IE 6?
The Prompt API is part of a real W3C standard: https://www.w3.org/2025/03/webmachinelearning-charter.html
It's not even chaired by Google. It's Intel, believe it or not.
1) Google properties
1a) Chromecast
2) a few web-based games that were really pushing the envelope on web APIs and didn't bother testing on Firefox
3) WebUSB, commonly used for some things like keyboard customization apps
I wonder if he's using a Radeon gpu, those have had issues like video playback making the entire ui framerate drop. But it happens in steam/electron too, not only firefox. The shader cores aren't used much either, it's just a bug.
Kaiser's website works mostly on Firefox. Recently I had to print a "letter" and on Firefox it was blank and printed fine with Chrome.
I don't know if it's still this way, but Google Meet didn't work very well in Firefox, so last year I took all my meetings in Chrome.
These are just what I remember. There are a LOT more.
EDIT: on the UPS thing... it happens when I follow links from gmail in Firefox. Sometimes it wouldn't 404, but I'd see a "..." and it would just stay that way.
EDIT2: for a long time (not anymore), sending Kaiser emails was broken. Hitting enter would warp to the bottom on the page and I'd have to scroll back up to finish typing. They're completely redesigned the website recently and that bug is fixed.
They got Chrome when it was bundled with every single installer ever for about a decade (which was so prolific and scummy that Microsoft had to make the "default app" picker system more defensive, because Chrome was abusing it more than microsoft apps were).
When you installed Java, you also got Chrome set as your default browser with no interaction.
Or they one click downloaded it from Google.com because of a giant banner saying "You gotta download chrome"
It's insane to me how rarely people on HN seem to actually know the history of this. Everyone who worked in tech support in the 2010s experienced this.
It was an identical strategy that most spyware and adware used at the time.
They're now on a T480, released 2018.
2. The adblocking is preconfigured, and non technical users trying to find the right extensions has a very bad history of unintentional malware. Ad block? Adblock plus? Ublock? Ublock origin? This is a great example of what floors a lot of technical folk who would be "why not just install ublock origin" and fail to understand the "why should I when I can just get Brave one and it works"
3. Most people don't use macs
Brave is the Google empire aka chromium.
I use thorium, which also belongs to the empire, so it is not really any different to Brave - but I can use ublock origin still, so that's better. I think we are all in the Google empire here. Praising Brave as alternative, simply does not make a whole lot of sense really.
Firefox is a bit outside of it but it basically got rid of most of its users. When I use firefox, I can not play audio on youtube videos. It works fine with thorium. I tried to convince the firefox developer who said everyone on Linux must use pulseaudio (I don't) but there is no reasoning with Mozilla hackers here. He thinks he knows better than everyone else does. (I could recompile firefox from source, but Mozilla uses mozconfig still: https://www.linuxfromscratch.org/blfs/view/svn/xsoft/firefox... - they are too incompetent to transition into meson or cmake. A failing project, no wonder it lost most of its users. Titanic got nothing on the Firefox team.)
Unfortunately, there is no way to switch back to the stock Chromium look.
The single affiliated link scandal is enough to not touch that project with a ten foot pole.
The web's dependency on Chromium engines is deeply concerning, I agree. I used Firefox for a long time. But at this point, IMO Brave is the most pragmatic choice if you want a browser that's not Google but "just works" with the modern web.
Bubble indeed. No one should use Brave.
O no they gave you BAT for visiting websites. Ahhh crypto everyone run!
Also hilarious that I got downvoted on my main comment but nobody was willing to show themselves.
You’re the product, not the browser.