The issue is building a browser is not profitable by itself.
You’d need to sell an annual subscription of 150$ to like 10 million people to get a browser that’s actually developed for users and not in some bizarre exploitive fashion.
You’d need to sell an annual subscription of 150$ to like 10 million people to get a browser that’s actually developed for users and not in some bizarre exploitive fashion.
But at the end of the day, it's not the amount of money that matters, it's the goals of the people running it.
Marketing costs money. Taxes, etc. Not everyone is going to pay the full 150$. Various discount programs would probably exist.
Anyway, even if my numbers are off not enough people will pay for a browser for this to be a viable business.
If you disagree you can start today and I’ll gladly subscribe. Not a fork, no build a new browser from scratch with feature parity to chrome
I guess you know you're wrong because why else would you need this bizarre requirement?
I guess if we really get technical we could say you can fork, but need to independently implement updates going forward.
Progress!
> but need to independently implement updates going forward.
That's not needed either? But since you've provided no rationale, it's hard to point out where the mistake lies. What's wrong with using known code updates as long as you remove the anti-user parts?
Anyway modern browsers are too hard to build profitably I guess without anti-consumer weirdness. Might have to switch to a cli RSS reader...
I think that matters quite a bit. Otherwise, if you've got a spare $1,000, build us a browser. Maybe vibe code it?