Ask HN: Will you pay to download a fast/secure/privacy web browser? | Hacker News Reader

Ask HN: Will you pay to download a fast/secure/privacy web browser?

5 pointsbikamonki6 comments

App.net is gambling that some of us want a paid ad-free/privacy social network. Given that we now do most of our computer usage inside a browser, wouldn't some of us pay to download a broswer that: Sandboxes each site/session/page Blocks ads by default (and learns to block new ad techniques) Runs adware/spyware on each request (and auto-updates threats database) Warns/blocks phishing Blocks 'tool-bars' install Runs TOR Securely stores usrnms/pwds

And yet does not sacrifice standards and compatibility.

I know that I can setup any browser plus download some tools to fulfil this wishlist but I was thinking an out-of-the-box-no-geek-only solution.

I would pay, would you?

View on HN

No. Securing a browser is extraordinarily hard, resource intensive, and thus expensive. I would have a hard time believing any new browser project could outdo Chromium, which is free and run by the smartest team in browser security.

This is a little like asking if I would pay for a more secure Linux kernel, even though there's already a grsecurity.

If you're doing market research and your market is the set of people who would buy an "out-of-the-box-no-geek-only" solution, why are you asking on Hacker News?

What do you mean by "sandboxes each site/session/page"? Which one? You can't isolate each page from the others in a browser for the non-geek as people expect login information to persist between tabs.

What do you mean by "Runs adware/spyware on each request"?

There are problems with bundling Tor as well. The non-geek is not equipped to understand the caveats in its use, and if you label it with a big easy-to-understand "privacy button" then you've engendered a false sense of security which does more harm than good.

But no, I wouldn't pay, and I would advise my non-geek friends not to either (not that they would anyway what with all the free solutions around). If you have to pay, it's likely closed-source, which is a priori less secure. However, you should know that even if there were a hungry market waiting for you, what you want to do is a Hard Problem.

Thanks for the comments. This is no market research, I am not apt to program a browser much less sell it.

I took me about 20min of tweaking FF to set the privacy and security to the extent possible. I did not setup TOR b/c I think anonimity is not required for everyday browsing, plus TOR is slow and many sites do not play well with it. I also do not need spyware/adware b/c I run Ubuntu.

I was just wondering if non-techies would be willing to pay for a browser version/bundle that is setup like this out of the box (it can be open-source).

If I tell my mom that she's being re-targeted and profiled b/c her cookies are enabled...she'd bring me some milk :)

Beyond proprietary obfuscation and unverifiability, the paradox is that it would take a lot of convincing before I would believe that the seller of a commercial product had any interest other than selling the commercial product.

No, I prefer open source browsers.

You could pay for an open source browser.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com