[HN Gopher] Arc Browser Company: Chrome and Safari face a new ch...
___________________________________________________________________
Arc Browser Company: Chrome and Safari face a new challenger
Author : cpeterso
Score : 78 points
Date : 2022-05-29 00:06 UTC (22 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.bloomberg.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.bloomberg.com)
| rascul wrote:
| Is this just another Chrome skin or is it actually a new browser?
| coffeefirst wrote:
| It's Chromium, but more of a "rework the UI from scratch" than
| just a skin.
|
| I have the beta. It has some interesting ideas.
| debdut wrote:
| can i get an invite?
| layer8 wrote:
| Go here: https://browserco.typeform.com/to/l9lYbJtU
| ushakov wrote:
| https://archive.ph/4MuhM
| aaronfc wrote:
| agluszak wrote:
| > wide address bars wasting valuable space across the top of the
| screen to display what he calls "URL gibberish."
|
| That's not "gibberish", in my opinion understanding what URLs
| mean (or even reading them at all!) is one of the most overlooked
| computer skills nowadays. If they look like gibberish that's
| because of: 1. Tracking parameters spam (?fbclid=qwerty) 2. Lack
| of knowledge that many parts of the URL can (and even should) be
| skipped when sharing it. So many times my non-programmer friends
| were astonished that you don't have to paste that ugly part!
|
| Hiding the details instead of explaining them is a way leading to
| disaster! Many banking scams rely on users not paying attention
| to URLs.
|
| I think that a better "innovation" would be to have the browser
| clean URLs from tracking bits without extensions.
| admax88qqq wrote:
| There has to be some solution to the phishing problem that
| doesn't require teaching the general population how to parse
| URLs.
|
| there's room to innovate here.
| ushakov wrote:
| the issue is they have to sell this to the investors
|
| what do they answer when investors ask a typical: "What makes
| you different from competition?"
|
| their answer is: "We don't waste valuable space across the top
| of the screen to display URL gibberish"
|
| the article is for business people, who could potentially
| invest into their Series A round, not for us tech people
| [deleted]
| gman83 wrote:
| At the same time, I think that more than 90% of people that I
| know have absolutely no idea how to read a URL, and are not
| going to learn. I think that just showing the domain for them
| wouldn't be so bad. I don't think I'm the target audience for
| this browser.
| fny wrote:
| [deleted]
| ushakov wrote:
| this one is arguably not as bad as YC's "Stablegains"
| investment
| ushakov wrote:
| > Hovering the mouse over a Google Calendar button will surface a
| tiny panel of upcoming appointments. Spotify comes with an
| embedded player to shuffle through songs
|
| how long until this feature breaks, because they rely on third-
| party APIs like Google's that change all the time?
| [deleted]
| ushakov wrote:
| also why does a music player and calendar widget needs to be in
| a browser?
|
| it's already implemented in system-level ui (at least on macOS
| and Gnome)
| DarthNebo wrote:
| Anyone remember Refresh concept from a while back,
| https://phase.com/magazine/refresh-rethinking-the-browser/
| chrisfrantz wrote:
| This looks great, did it ever launch?
| workona wrote:
| Our iPad app provides a pretty similar user experience as
| their concept video: https://apps.apple.com/us/app/workona-
| project-organizer/id15...
| echan00 wrote:
| How is this unknown company a challenger? How is this even worthy
| of Bloomberg to report on
| capableweb wrote:
| A lot of stuff you see in Bloomberg (and elsewhere) either gets
| paid to be put there (some via agencies that specializes in
| things like that), or put on there via connections. They are
| not reporting on underdogs for the fun of it.
| sealeck wrote:
| Do you have a source for this? Not in any way saying it's not
| true but would be interesting if there was some analysis
| somewhere.
| capableweb wrote:
| Unfortunately no, only personal experience working in bunch
| of different companies (some US based, some EU) where
| they've employed agencies like that and gotten the result
| they wanted (an article published).
| readthenotes1 wrote:
| Paid for advertising maybe?
| [deleted]
| Terretta wrote:
| See "earned media":
|
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earned_media
|
| https://sproutsocial.com/insights/earned-media-strategy/
| Shadonototra wrote:
| dead on arrival, nobody is looking for a new browser
|
| chrome proved that people give no shit about browsers
|
| the UI/UX haven't changed since day 1, still minimalist AF
|
| firefox usage dropped massively, as they kept iterating on their
| UI/UX, forgetting the reason why people needed a browser in the
| fist place, instead they kept raising the salary of their CEO, as
| if he/she/it was the reason why people wanted to use firefox :')
|
| the focus is on the websites
|
| people literally only want an address bar and sync-able
| bookmarks/history with their phone, that's exactly what
| chrome/safari provide
|
| firefox can't even provide this, and they keep push their
| AD/sponsored articles about how sweet firefox is, nobody cares
|
| every other browsers from shady companies like this one are just
| cash grab (including firefox)
|
| the only logical evolution of browsers is literally ChromeOS, you
| boot to browse people's places (websites)
| Nextgrid wrote:
| > people give no shit about browsers
|
| This is mainly because people who are tech-savvy already have a
| good set up (Firefox with uBlock Origin and all bullshit
| disabled), and those who aren't don't know what they're missing
| out on because a browser by itself (even Firefox) doesn't
| actually fix any of their problems.
|
| A user-focused browser bundled with functionality that fixes
| today's user-hostile web (whether built-in or as preinstalled
| uBlock/etc) would convince anyone who tries it.
| zagrebian wrote:
| They need to come up with a different name. ARC Browser
| https://www.arcbrowser.com is already taken.
| [deleted]
| ThinkBeat wrote:
| "Arc Browser" is just Chromium + uBlock + some GUI enhancements
|
| I really wish that articles about "new browsers" should state up
| front what (if anything) they are built on top of.
|
| Each time I am hopeful that someone has taken on the monumental
| task of creating a new, better, or at least different web engine/
| browser. The competition would be good.
|
| The near impossible complexity in writing a new web browser from
| scratch seems indicative as to how broken the system has gotten.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| ducaale wrote:
| Maybe serenityOS browser will be the new engine/browser that
| rivals existing browser engines
|
| See
| https://mobile.twitter.com/awesomekling/status/1508953394836...
| kitsunesoba wrote:
| I agree. Yet Another Chromium Clone is not all that
| interesting, regardless of how its UI is dressed up, because
| realistically the browser's most core qualities are not going
| to differ significantly from those of any other Chrome-based
| browser.
|
| Being forthcoming about the engine of choice will help people
| set reasonable expectations... it's not a revolution, it's
| Chrome with a new coat of paint.
| zagrebian wrote:
| > Each time I am hopeful that someone has taken on the
| monumental task of creating a new, better, or at least
| different web engine/ browser. The competition would be good.
|
| What would be the benefit of having a browser with a new web
| engine?
| CharlesW wrote:
| > _What would be the benefit of having a browser with a new
| web engine?_
|
| This is the right question. The answer is probably what
| you're thinking: Absolutely nothing. It'd be a giant waste of
| time to spend 5 years rebuilding plumbing instead of focusing
| on where one can actually differentiate.
| LegitShady wrote:
| Competition and funding for non chromium initiatives.
|
| If someoone had asked the same question before chrome would
| you have agreed with them?
| zagrebian wrote:
| Well, Google didn't develop a new engine for Chrome. They
| forked WebKit. And then Samsung, Microsoft, and others
| forked Chromium for their own browsers. (These forks are
| kept close to Chromium, but they're still forks.)
| nskvortsov wrote:
| Browser tab problem is not about the web or the browser, it is
| about users' habits and discipline. If you suffer from this
| "problem" invest time in learning shortcuts for bookmark, typing
| to search history in the address bar, saving things in proper
| place for later reading and, above all, concentrate on one thing
| for more than 5 minutes.
| pvg wrote:
| At the end of the day, it's a browser, not a boot camp. If user
| re-education worked designing software (and most other things)
| would be a lot easier.
| [deleted]
| Karunamon wrote:
| This mindset/rant does not work in the real world. When a large
| enterprise company tried it, (Apple), they were widely mocked
| for blaming users for "holding it wrong".
|
| It is not up to developers to determine how users use their
| tools. The best you can do is hint and nudge, but it is not
| your decision at the end of the day.
| layer8 wrote:
| I don't think it's solvable if users don't themselves close
| or group/categorize the stuff they're opening. Any
| automation/heuristic is prone to not do what the user wants,
| because the tool can't really judge _why_ the user opened any
| given page, and thus can't make an informed decision in how
| to handle it. I can think of new (mostly power-)user features
| to support the user in organizing opened pages, but I have a
| hard time imagining an I-don't-want-to-deal-with-this user
| feature that would universally "just work". (Of course, I may
| be wrong.)
|
| The closest I can think of is to have sortable list views of
| open pages that you can sort by open date, last updated,
| possibly content type (e.g. has video), and/or group by site
| or by "opened from" (navigation history graph). Again, this
| is moving into power user territory.
| gabereiser wrote:
| "It will be free upfront; the team is looking at developing
| premium subscription features for enterprise users, perhaps
| somewhere around $12 a month, echoing the freemium model of Slack
| Technologies Inc., Dropbox Inc., and other productivity
| services."
|
| Good luck with that. The majority of browsers that were
| commercially closed software didn't make it. If it's open source
| then it will be ridiculed for not having an open license. If
| there's an open license then it's no longer yours to control and
| monetize.
|
| Chrome gets away with this because of chromium is the core,
| Chrome is the added "management" of your browser "experience".
| Safari gets away with this because WebKit is core, Safari is the
| added "management". Both are free from a monetary cost
| perspective on the user. Both position themselves as the keeper
| of secrets for their platform.
|
| I'm all for an open/free/libre browser that isn't WebKit. I
| believe it's naive to think you can change the existing web
| experience with a browser alone.
| capableweb wrote:
| > I'm all for an open/free/libre browser that isn't WebKit. I
| believe it's naive to think you can change the existing web
| experience with a browser alone.
|
| (Probably today you mean Blink?)
|
| This browser, like most "new" and "shiny" browsers today are
| just using embedded chrome and then put their own UX on top,
| calling it a new browser. Before, we'd call it a "browser
| shell" or something like that, but seemingly companies like
| this can launch with misleading wording and no one seems to
| notice it.
| Nextgrid wrote:
| > The majority of browsers that were commercially closed
| software didn't make it
|
| Keep in mind that the last time this was tried, free/open-
| source alternatives were on-par if not better and the web was
| much less hostile.
|
| Nowadays, not only is the web teeming with hostility that can
| best be addressed by a browser, but the closest free/open-
| source solution (Firefox) is half-baked and doesn't actually
| solve many of these issues nor is it incentivized to due to
| murky funding (most of it comes from Google, a big advertising
| provider) and a dysfunctional company.
|
| A browser whose funding comes directly from its users wouldn't
| have these misaligned incentives and wouldn't be afraid of
| doing bold moves that piss off adtech.
|
| _The Enterprise(tm)_ spends a lot of money on (often dubious)
| security products and given that the browser is often on the
| front-line for various threats, a browser with built-in
| security features (both against malware and other features such
| as DLP, blocking /filtering/monitoring without middleboxes)
| with a paid enterprise plan subsidizing a free version for
| personal use could become a sustainable business.
| Taywee wrote:
| Which issues do Firefox fail to solve?
| tux3 wrote:
| I frequently cannot log in to my bank with Firefox.
|
| The problem is that my bank's website was made by a bank,
| but as a Firefox user this impacts me in my daily life.
| sigio wrote:
| Probably best solved by changing banks... firefox works
| just fine with the ~4 banks I currently use. Though the
| situation is probably worse on the usa-side of the pond.
| DakotaR wrote:
| Conversely, one of my banks returns a server error if you
| visit from Chrome. Their "solution" was to put a banner
| at the top advising an alternate browser.
| mrtweetyhack wrote:
| skinnymuch wrote:
| How would this be solved by an up and coming browser that
| isn't based off Blink/Chromium and why can't Firefox do
| the solution?
| Barrin92 wrote:
| at least according to this article from last year Arc is
| chromium based.
|
| https://www.protocol.com/browser-company
| Nextgrid wrote:
| Firefox's problem is the company behind it, not the
| rendering engine. Firefox is actually a pretty fine
| browser if you pair it with uBlock Origin and neuter its
| wide range of user-hostile "features" and keep
| maintaining that as updates often introduce new
| "features" you'll need to disable.
| djbusby wrote:
| What's your top three user hostile feature? Have you
| looked at LibreFox?
|
| Edit: I see there is a LibreWolf and a LibreFox
| Nextgrid wrote:
| See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=31551947.
| ushakov wrote:
| have you considered telling your bank about the issue?
|
| it's not like they did this maliciously to worsen your
| experience as Firefox user?
| tux3 wrote:
| Sure. This has happened before and they do eventually fix
| it. Then a different problem might happen on another page
| a few months later, and this'll last a few weeks.
| Nextgrid wrote:
| Not only Mozilla's privacy claims are smoke and mirrors
| (you need uBlock Origin to get any reasonable privacy on
| the web today - why is it not included by default despite
| being permissively licensed?), they have opt- _out_
| telemetry (in breach of the GDPR), the browser will load a
| page with Google Analytics on first run and will nag you
| with bullshit on nearly every update (and it updates often)
| not to mention change the UI all the time for no good
| reason.
|
| Firefox is the most user-hostile free & open-source
| software that I know of, and more hostile than a lot of
| paid, proprietary software.
| irrational wrote:
| Firefox is half baked? What does that mean? I've used Firefox
| as my primary browser for many years, including for my full
| time job as a web developer, and have never had any issues.
| The only time I ever use Chrome is when I need to put in my
| PTO at work since their time-off web app doesn't work with
| Firefox.
| 1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote:
| "Half-baked" means Firefox adopts slogans like "protecting
| the open web" and it purports to represent the interests of
| web users, however its true goals are to generally to match
| Chrome feature-for-feature and preserve the status quo on the
| web which is that it provides an optimal medium for
| advertising. It gets over 90% of its financial support from
| Google, not web users.
|
| From the comments some people's idea of a fully baked Firefox
| is a browser that generally works exactly like Chrome and
| Safari on the surface but is somehow better, e.g., because it
| does not overtly sell advertising services. An enormously
| complex program with a gazillion knobs and dials that no
| average web user would ever touch. Sending all search queries
| of these users to Google by default. Perfect.
|
| Another idea of a fully-baked "Firefox" is one that has
| options to allow mere mortals to compile it from source on
| modest hardware in a reasonable amount of time. There could
| be multiple versions of Firefox, that could all be built from
| the same source tree, each a different compile time option,
| or a set of compile-time options. Some of these might exclude
| support for features that make the web optimal for
| advertising or commerce, i.e., essential features of Chrome
| or other "modern" web browsers. Scaled-down versions might be
| optimised for different experiences. Not all them driven by
| Javascript. For example, fast consumption of noncommercial
| content with minimal surveillance, and no advertising.
| Essentially "Reader Mode" as the default.
|
| What is the point of having Firefox be open source if almost
| no one can download the source and start creating new and
| different web clients with it. Instead it is a project that
| only tries to keep pace with Chrome, getting larger and
| larger, more and more complex. It appears to have no other
| purpose. Tunnel vision. Follow the leader.
|
| Make no mistake, I am not suggesting there should be no
| Firefox version that does almost everything that Chrome does,
| as there is now. Mozilla has supported use of the web for
| advertising and commerce. They have supported Yahoo, Inc. and
| Google, LLC. That's wonderful. Great job.
|
| What I am suggesting is that Firefox should also have
| smaller, simpler versions that deliberately do not do all the
| things that Chrome does. Mozilla should also work to support
| noncommercial web use. Compile-time options to remove
| Javascript, telemetry and a host of other things some users
| may prefer to do without. Give people choice.
| ushakov wrote:
| how is Firefox half-baked?
|
| i'm using it every day along with Safari and don't see any
| significant differences
| sosull wrote:
| +1, it's a great piece of software.
| zamadatix wrote:
| With something as wide scoped as a browser this inevitably
| comes down to "well the 200 things I think are relevant
| do/don't work the same in favor of a/b" out of tens of
| thousands, if not more, of things implemented.
|
| For me Firefox is about as good as any. Upsides here,
| downsides there, and nothing truly outstanding overall. It
| seems severely far behind in modern color (e.g. HDR videos
| or all of the wide gamut CSS specifications coming out),
| ahead in terms of single profile compartmentalization
| (containers), but behind in profile management (the profile
| manager sucks if you even know how to get to it). For as
| much as it champions being the last bastion of the free web
| it comes default with a decent amount of crapware (pocket,
| vpn) and has lost its way in terms of power user
| flexibility (UI customization, mobile extension limits,
| removal of power user flags). That said it's still better
| than the alternatives in those spaces, just not as good as
| it used to be.
|
| For another none of these might matter but a lot of other
| reasons I don't even think about might. In the end even
| Firefox's own usage statistic point to the vast majority
| seeming to agree it doesn't have anything compelling enough
| to be worth switching to/evangelizing for anymore though.
| shkkmo wrote:
| Firefox on desktop is pertty solid, despite some
| controversial decisions.
|
| Firedox on android has a lot of issues.
| iamcurious wrote:
| Which ones? On principle, I never use chrome on android.
| Am I missing some killer feature?
| brundolf wrote:
| > The Enterprise(tm) spends a lot of money on (often dubious)
| security products
|
| > a browser with built-in security features (both against
| malware and other features such as DLP,
| blocking/filtering/monitoring without middleboxes)
|
| It'll be hard to outdo Google at security research and
| hardening
| Retric wrote:
| Last month Google announced 30 new security including
| critical vulnerabilities in chrome.
|
| They might be doing a great job at hardening, but they
| don't have a great reputation.
| meibo wrote:
| What is that supposed to say about reputation?
|
| It's the most popular browser by far, and they actually
| do have a very publicized team that reports bugs to not
| just Chrome, but Apple and Mozilla as well. In my circles
| this is well respected, and personally, it inspires more
| confidence in the infrastructure around Chrome to me. I'd
| be wary of any "new" browser engines in unsafe languages.
| Retric wrote:
| > What is that supposed to say about reputation?
|
| Just that people don't consider chrome extremely secure,
| it may be acceptable 99% of the time, but it doesn't get
| a free pass in extreme security environments.
| pvg wrote:
| What is the 'extreme security environment' you have in
| mind? Very little end-user software operates in an
| environment and with operational parameters as
| adversarial as a modern web browser's.
| imajoredinecon wrote:
| Do you mean "30 security vulnerabilities, 1 of which was
| critical"? Because that seems to be the reality:
| https://chromereleases.googleblog.com/2022/05/stable-
| channel...
| georgemcbay wrote:
| > Last month Google announced 30 new security including
| critical vulnerabilities in chrome.
|
| This doesn't mean chrome is less secure than other
| options, it means people are heavily incentivized to find
| and report security problems and google is open about
| issues that are found.
|
| This makes me feel better about chrome's security, not
| worse, and I say this as someone who is overall kind of
| iffy on google these days.
| Nextgrid wrote:
| Vulnerabilities in the browser engine is only part of the
| issue. Plenty of malicious activity involves tricking the
| _user_ or silently spying on them - blocking advertising
| /spyware/etc domains will greatly help with that.
| IceDane wrote:
| Wow, is this a serious article? I honestly felt like I was
| reading the onion for a bit.
|
| This is just yet another tech bro trying to "reinvent" the
| browser by giving certain web applications a more first class
| experience and shuffling around(and hiding) UI elements. Opera
| has been doing a lot of neat stuff in this space for years, and
| we all know how well it's going for them and their market share.
|
| It will never cease to baffle me how easily some people manage to
| get other people to throw money at them. I'm sure you can sell
| some $12 subscription to a macOS hipster productivity addict who
| is already subbing to 15 other shiny-looking macOS-only apps, but
| otherwise I hope your investors are ready for you to capture a
| whopping 1-2% of the browser market share like opera.
| [deleted]
| behnamoh wrote:
| so just bloatware bells and whistles
| [deleted]
| ratww wrote:
| From the description, it actually reminds me of Internet
| Explorer toolbars in terms of functionality, which were quite
| common bloatware.
|
| I don't disagree that there's new interesting features that can
| go into browsers (like Safari's OCR), but a browsers are kind
| of an important type of software, we gotta be a bit more
| careful with bloat.
| cutler wrote:
| What kind of dev tools and extensions will Arc offer? If it's
| just a consumer browser it's doomed to fail.
| rejectfinite wrote:
| >A Startup Wants to Rescue You From Browser Tab Hell
|
| Vivaldi, Edge and Firefox already do this with vertical tabs.
|
| Vivaldi also has the excellent tab search.
| capableweb wrote:
| Thank god for TreeStyleTabs, couldn't live without it (and main
| reason I'm not switching away from Firefox).
|
| But it doesn't really save you from "browser tab hell", it just
| makes it easier to manage. If anything, I have more tabs open
| now, across multiple reboots just because it's so much easier
| to find tabs that I might as well have all of them open.
|
| Here is how it looks right now for me:
| https://imgur.com/a/EHr8JEe
|
| And that's the list scrolled all the way to the bottom. Easily
| three-four pages more if you scroll upwards.
| ajvs wrote:
| I honestly don't know how people manage any serious web
| browsing without Tree Style Tabs. It's hell on Chromium-based
| browsers with their constantly shrinking tab width, and the
| workarounds aren't much better.
| sam345 wrote:
| Checkout Fast Tab Switcher in firefox. Far preferable to
| vertical tabs. https://addons.mozilla.org/en-
| US/firefox/addon/fast-tab-swit...
| kbyatnal wrote:
| why are all these comments so negative? I, for one, am very
| excited that talented developers and designers are reimagining
| such a core part of everyone's daily workflow. The embedded
| calendar / music player (along with auto archived tabs) is very
| cool - not sure how well it'll work in practice, but it's clear
| the team has put their heart into this. And more competition for
| Google/Apple is always good.
| [deleted]
| [deleted]
| ushakov wrote:
| beyond a slightly different UI, there's nothing you can
| "reimagine" in a web browser
|
| embedding third-party services is a feature that is prone to
| break often
|
| Chrome became the #1 because it was technically advanced
| (faster) but more importantly - endorsed by a search giant
| zagrebian wrote:
| The UI shown in the screenshot is radically different.
| ushakov wrote:
| i see bookmarks, tabs, navigation and the browser window
|
| nothing in the interface looks "radically different" to me
| zagrebian wrote:
| Those are not tabs but website icons (think iOS home
| screen).
| mrtweetyhack wrote:
| nwienert wrote:
| It's hard to read articles with this unabashed of a tone, feels
| like much of the company's own claims are uncritically re-
| printed.
| vegetablepotpie wrote:
| A lot of news media is lightly edited press releases. PR pros
| outnumber journalists 6-1 [1] and they do a lot of the work for
| journalists upfront that make it easier for them to publish.
|
| [1] https://www.prdaily.com/report-pr-pros-outnumber-
| journalists...
| WesolyKubeczek wrote:
| You'd be amazed how many such articles and reviews are ads in
| disguise.
|
| ...Sometimes though, you might not have enough dough for the
| disguise.
| stevenhuang wrote:
| Their characterisation of power users' bad tab management is
| certainly contrived, but it's cool to see their take on a new
| browser ui.
|
| Their proposed UI would be familiar to many FF vertical
| tab/tree tab users.
| [deleted]
| omosubi wrote:
| As they say, if no one in the article is mad that it's printed,
| it's PR, not news
| inlined wrote:
| Google might be mad given the accusations that Chrome
| features are killed if they lower Google searches.
| machinerychorus wrote:
| Darn, I was hoping this would be about https://arc.io. I know
| it's not very popular on hn because "how dare they use my
| bandwidth and cpu" but I think it's really cool. A viable
| business model for websites that doesn't require cramming things
| full of ads.
| ehhthing wrote:
| Thank you for introducing me to a wonderful privacy nightmare.
|
| P2P networks inherently are not private: everyone on the
| network knows who else is on the network and what they are
| doing. Thus one bad node could collect data on others' browsing
| habits and track people quite easily.
| brimstedt wrote:
| In my opinion, they don't seem to solve the browser tab problem,
| just iterate on it.
|
| Just remove them completely and let you window manager manage
| your windows.
|
| (And yes, Firefox still supports browsing without tabs, so we got
| what we need right there ;)
| mmphosis wrote:
| _Firefox still supports browsing without tabs_
|
| It sort of does. I can't open settings in a new window without
| opening settings in a new tab first and then moving the tab to
| a new window. Or, create a new window and paste
| about:preferences into the url bar. Maybe there's some
| userChrome.css to do it.
|
| I can create userChrome.css, which is discouraged, in order to
| hide the redundant tab bar with the single tab in it. Yes, it
| sort of works, it's kludgy and has issues.
| john-titor wrote:
| firefox <3
| [deleted]
| geogra4 wrote:
| Is there any reason that they couldn't build this ui on top of
| chrome? I've seen quite a lot of chrome based browsers with
| interesting uis
| 225beef wrote:
| Im a beta tester for this product and it does use Chromium
| under the hood, pre-bundled with uBlock no less.
| cutler wrote:
| So it's just another Chrome skin with rearranged tabs.
| Jeezus.
| geogra4 wrote:
| Well then it doesn't seem so groundbreaking then
| ushakov wrote:
| i'd have liked to be a fly on the wall when they pitched
| this to the investors
| ushakov wrote:
| a ui on top of chrome doesn't get you $25 million in funding
| and a dedicated Bloomberg article
|
| edit: apparently it does
| charcircuit wrote:
| I'd expect the opposite. It's likely not worth funding
| someone to reimplement a whole browser engine instead of
| reusing an existing one. It would take a lot of time and
| money to build and maintain and you don't gain too much by
| having your own entirely custom engine.
| fabrice_d wrote:
| There's a difference between forking a full browser (this
| is quite easy initially, but down the road your fork may
| end up being difficult to maintain) and building a new
| browser on top of the rendering engine (Blink here, could
| be Gecko or Webkit). In the latter case, the initial
| investment is higher, so getting to a daily driver product
| requires more effort. However long term that can be
| beneficial because you don't conflict that much with
| upstream changes.
|
| Writing a new rendering engine and browser on top is
| totally different effort as you may guess.
| theyak wrote:
| So it's Microsoft Edge? https://www.howtogeek.com/697986/how-to-
| enable-and-use-verti...
| ushakov wrote:
| > Even Miller realizes his ambitions sound absurd
|
| > he jokes about his company's 0% market share
|
| investors: give this man $25m
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-05-29 23:01 UTC)