> Another problem is that their browser does not have an attractive and unique selling point, so they also lose out on this front.
FF’s unique and compelling selling point is the “Gecko Engine” with the endless customization options, stellar security and unparalleled privacy it offers depending on the hardware and configuration setup used. It has a higher market share than Brave for a reason. Market share position, however, does not demonstrate how good a browser is. On the desktop, FF is the top browser for anyone with even a hint of privacy awareness. That would always be the case, even if Brave surpassed FF’s market share, although that would never happen.
Brave will never be an attractive browser to use in place of FF for many privacy advocates and for those trying to step back from all things Google. Even as a browser for compartmentalization purposes, it probably isn’t even recommended by privacy groups such as “Privacy Guides” for various reasons. This is just one example, many don’t like Brave because it lacks strong customization.
Brave uses a “high-tech centralized browser engine” over which Google has a monopoly and can go in any direction, with browser forks like Brave having to contend with Google’s pervasive privacy mess over “property. Google’s facto “of the implementation of the chrome design and direction of their financially controlled pseudo” chrome engine “. Chromium is a driving force in Google’s hands to manipulate and craft it as it sees fit, with the forks being dependent on the bezel direction and having to clean the bezel direction frequently, which is likely to break things in the process. process while trying to fork it, because chrome ultimately belongs to google, it was originally intended for chrome. It follows the path of chrome.
I have no faith in “browser developers” using a chrome fork and calling it private. I don’t care about a long list of toggle options for privacy in a chrome fork, I don’t trust the chrome engine. I will never use anything Google related, especially a browser engine, as Google isn’t exactly known for privacy.
Chromium has poor privacy compared to what can be done with Firefox customization options and extensions.
> Rumor has it that Eich came up with a model similar to the one he now does with Brave at the time at Mozilla, but it was rejected.
Great! Generating crypto through in-browser ads has been widely criticized in the privacy communities. Before you complain about the advertisements in FF, it can always be said that they can be easily disabled.
> Given their close affiliation and heavy reliance on Google, and their stance in favor of free speech online, I’m not at all sad to see Mozilla go.
You would be sad to see them go, as you are not a “privacy advocate” who would like to see a wide variety of browsers and engines available, so people can have multiple options for a browser. As for your thoughts on their position regarding freedom of expression? You’ve been beating that drum for over a year, not realizing that “Mozilla” is in no position like “Google” to engage in outright censorship. Google engages in censorship on its “youtube” platform. However, being as short-sighted and ignorant as you are, you fail to recognize these facts, as you continue to support an actively developed “browser engine” (chrome) by a company (google) that has a strong history of censorship. ! You are full of hypocrisy!
Unnecessary browser wars between Chrome / Brave VS Firefox are all you are discussing, you also have a poor understanding of the technology.
I love that Brave exists and is a browser option, you use it, good for you, a lot of others use it, good for them. However, many will never use it, but are happy that it exists in fork form. However, wanting to see FF’s demise shows who you are.
No one who loves a good browser never takes you seriously. Your arguments have been constantly dismantled time and time again.