Battle Switching Browsers 2019 - Brave v Chrome v Edge-Chromium v Firefox

Ink

Administrator
Thread author
Verified
Staff Member
Well-known
Jan 8, 2011
22,361
There has been a lot of news coming to light regarding Internet web browser this year. Let's see which one you'll be switching to.

Here's a short run down;
  • Chrome restricting Ad-blockers, dark mode and more colours
  • Firefox with enhanced privacy out of the box, and upcoming premium services for VPN and cloud storage
  • Brave with their blockchain-based tokens, rewarding creators and maintaining privacy
  • Microsoft with a Chromium-based browser to replace Edge, without all the shame of Google

If you are going to make the switch, which one are you going to?
 
F

ForgottenSeer 72227

Surprised to see that amount of users switching to Edge... you know it's not any better than Chrome in privacy terms.

That's very true.

While I cant speak for everyone, I feel like another factor may be that more people may just want to use the built in browser vs using a 3rd party one. While not built in yet, its coming and me personally I just want to keep things simple. The original edge was good, but chrome was still better. Now the new version brings it pretty much on par with chrome. My gut tells me that a lot of people wanted to use edge, but due to lack of extensions and such people were still forced to use a 3rd party browser. Now they can and IMO its now up to 3rd parties to prove to me why I should use something over the new edge.
 

ChoiceVoice

Level 6
Verified
Oct 10, 2014
280
i did not say profit is evil, it is you implying that
actually i am completely for paid software
what i did say is that Brave has investors to answer to and at some point it is going to have a financial reckoning that will likely quash any notions of privacy

really ? browsers need to be funded ?
then tell me how completely unfunded browsers such as CyberFox and Falkon exist ?
how does linux exist ?
how do all free software exist ?
none have regular revenue streams
most live off irregular paltry donations
some get no income whatsoever
so the notion that any software has to be funded is false


well actually you did disparage brave for seeking to fund their browser now didn't you :)

"Brave's whole business model is ad revenue and while it is opt-in now at some point in the future there will not be such an option.
Brave has investors and it has to deliver expected revenue at some point when push comes to shove expect Brave to change massively
like I said there is other stuff for those that know how to look for it"

you critically identify two means by which brave is funding itself. one is ad revenue. the other is investors. so you are being disingenuous or unclear. perhaps you merely dislike the ad revenue model being tied to the privacy issue (but support the ad revenue model), but this doesn't actually follow from what you explicitly stated and is further undermined by your addendum of "investors" in a negative connotation, and is again undermined by your concern that brave will remove its integrated adblocker to allow ads (not just personalized ads).

as for freeware, there are mechanisms for making a profit, but this is too complex for me to expound upon here (i don't care enough to write 2-3 pages explaining the economics and marketing of software). but rest assured, freeware is developed to turn a product ... eventually. there are very few developers that spend large swags of their life writing code for narcissistic reasons, or for the joy of it. heheh.

falkin is just another fork that will end. it was qupzilla. qupzilla was discontinued because it couldn't make money. the project died. falkin will die too, if it can't make money. qupzilla was pulled out of the discontinued storage bin and dusted off by a new developer that is business-minded. he is going to use it on his resume to get a high paying job, or he has plans to grow it and shift it into a revenue stream to make a living off it, or to supplement his income.
 
F

ForgottenSeer 72227

as for freeware, there are mechanisms for making a profit, but this is too complex for me to expound upon here (i don't care enough to write 2-3 pages explaining the economics and marketing of software). but rest assured, freeware is developed to turn a product ... eventually. there are very few developers that spend large swags of their life writing code for narcissistic reasons, or for the joy of it. heheh.

falkin is just another fork that will end. it was qupzilla. qupzilla was discontinued because it couldn't make money. the project died. falkin will die too, if it can't make money. qupzilla was pulled out of the discontinued storage bin and dusted off by a new developer that is business-minded. he is going to use it on his resume to get a high paying job, or he has plans to grow it and shift it into a revenue stream to make a living off it, or to supplement his income.

You highlight a very important aspect of "free software" and it's one that is often forgotten/ignored. Free software is great, don't get me wrong, I mean you can't argue with free. The problem is that it's not always sustainable. Unless they are getting money through ad's, another full time job, sponsors, donations, etc...developers need to make money. I'm not talking about being extremely rich type of money, they just need money to live like everyone else.

A lot of free software starts out for the fun of it. Over time either the developer(s) slow down with updating the software, or they just stop completely. Hence why there are many forks with open source software, it's mostly because the developer stopped developing it, so someone picks it up and continues on, until the cycle continues. While I agree that free software CAN be done, it doesn't mean that a developer cannot charge for it, especially if they want to make it their full time job. Linux is a great example, many major distributions (Ubuntu, Fedora, PopOS, etc...) are largely funded by other companies, or sponsors. Fedora is paid for by Red Hat which makes money in the enterprise, Ubuntu is paid for by Canonical, and PopOS is paid for by System 76 which builds and sells Linux computers. So while free, they have income coming in that allows it to be free.

Another great example is No Virus Thanks. He makes a ton and I mean a ton of great free software. Its clear he makes money through projects he works on for businesses and enterprises, so obviously a lot of his time will be spent there. While his free offerings are great, when was the last time we seen any updates to them?? Nothing against him whats so ever, I know he will return and develop them again, but it just goes to show that free isn't always great. Eventually things will either slow down, or stop entirely.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Handsome Recluse

Level 23
Verified
Top Poster
Well-known
Nov 17, 2016
1,242
Eventually things will either slow down, or stop entirely.
There are free software who still brave the tides to this day however. Lots in open source, Linux and Linux packages, browsers, browser addons and also lots in mods for games. Don't discount nerds and kids with a bare minimum of resources spreading their nerdiness. After all, thots and thirst traps upload their services on Instagram for free. Don't discount their longevity just because it was born differently. Current tech companies haven't lasted long, too.
 

About us

  • MalwareTips is a community-driven platform providing the latest information and resources on malware and cyber threats. Our team of experienced professionals and passionate volunteers work to keep the internet safe and secure. We provide accurate, up-to-date information and strive to build a strong and supportive community dedicated to cybersecurity.

User Menu

Follow us

Follow us on Facebook or Twitter to know first about the latest cybersecurity incidents and malware threats.

Top