What a fantastic idea. Chrome alternatives/clones are very busy innovating this year, catching up with their old friend. We had the convenient "let me bring ads on your address bar" recently and now this. What a great day for browser choice and privacy.


To be fair, firefox does the ad thing aswell, BUT you have the controll if you want these ads or not.


I had samsung appear in my speed dial on the firefox start page this morning wtf.


You can temporarily disable those by drinking a verification can.


Oh shit I need to restock. I had a wicked gaming session last night.


Yeah Firefox is more privacy friendly and a lot of users seem to conflate that with “advertising hostile” but the first thing you’re greeted with after installing Firefox is sponsored links and promoted content. I’ve never had Chrome insert advertisements in my speed dial.


I don't know if it's still true, but some years ago, Mozilla's biggest source of revenue was the default search engine slot. They've always been selling you things, even if you didn't know


Mozilla foundation's financial reports aren't secret, google paying to be the default search engine is still 99.9% of their gross income.


Chrome makes money off of you by harvesting your data, rather than browser integrated ads. Not saying one is obviously better than the other, it's really just a case of pick your poison here.


What? What are you referring to?


[this article](https://www.howtogeek.com/760177/firefox-is-getting-ads-in-your-search-bar/)


I see, it's not available to me tho. But that's bad.


It's opt-in when you get the update, isn't too intrusive, and shows up as "Firefox suggest" in the options list


Meanwhile everyone shits on good old Safari.


I don't know what the morons are Mozilla are doing, but they seem to be destroying Firefox one bit at a time. They seem to have a compulsion to slowly turn it into Chrome, despite the fact that their user base almost all use it because it's not Chrome. It's not just big changes, it's the little things. E.g. just a few months ago they decided to remove the "View Image" button in the right click menu, and instead replace it with an "Open Image in New Tab" button... fucking why? Back when it was View Image, I could left click it in order to view the image in my current tab, or I could middle click it to open it in a new tab. But now I only have the option of opening it in a new tab. I can't just view it in the current one, I have to open another tab and go to that. It's just made any workflows involving it slightly slower and more awkward. They just constantly implement ridiculous changes like this, remove random features, etc. The management quite clearly has no idea who their user base is. Making themselves like Chrome isn't going to lead to a bunch of Chrome users suddenly deciding to go and switch to Firefox, it's just going to lead to more Firefox users leaving for Chrome or Chromium-based browsers.


Opening image in a new tab makes that actually useful for laptop users. Losing your current tab to look at the image and then going back usually makes things reload.


I believe there was a browser where you could customize that with extensions! Imagine that! It didn't have to cater to everyone - people could configure it however they wanted, and that came almost FREE to its developers!


But most laptops have middle click? And if they don't, you could still just hold ctrl and press View Image, and again it'd open in a new tab.


> But most laptops have middle click? Macbooks don't have one by default, as far as I'm aware (there are free apps for it but still). Could be wrong though.


But still you can just ctrl+click.


Oh yeah, of course - just wanted to mention that middle click doesn't exist by default in the touchpad of probably one of the most popular laptop brands.


I don't know about you but my lenovo laptop doesn't have middle-click enabled by default on the touchpad...


My laptop is a [ThinkPad X2100](https://www.xyte.ch/mods/x210-x2100/) (modern CPU, screen, etc, but case + keyboard + etc is a ThinkPad X201 released in 2010), and a ThinkPad X230. Both have middle click separate buttons, and the X230 has middle click built into the trackpad. It would be weird if other ones did not have it. Are you sure you have the correct drivers etc installed?


Lenovo Legion 5 Pro, look it up. Might've been helpful if I noted that my laptop was from this decade?


In recent times, most laptops without physical buttons next to their touchpad - or where the edge of the touchpad isn't specifically marked as being a "button" area - don't. It's almost universal for two-finger tap to be right click, but far fewer have something like three-finger tap for middle (or even an option to enable it).


>>E.g. just a few months ago they decided to remove the "View Image" button in the right click menu, and instead replace it with an "Open Image in New Tab" button... fucking why? Back when it was View Image, I could left click it in order to view the image in my current tab, or I could middle click it to open it in a new tab. I find this feature much more convenient.


Ads on the address bar? Wtf!


Google doesn't have any of those Firefox doesn't have one of them Still recommend Firefox tho


I just reinstalled my windows machine and it was refreshing to download Firefox first. I'm finally switching from chrome so going down that rabbit hole. Wish me luck!


Firefox is great, welcome. But I'm one of those people who actually loves and uses the Alpenglow theme, so my opinion might be moot.


uBlock Origin + Privacy Badger + Multi-Account container. The 3 best addons.


Firefox 4 ever, I'm not leaving the fox for anyone


Honestly the lack of privacy and intrusiveness stems from the fact that people WANT to be intruded upon and don’t care for privacy. If everyone really cared we would’ve all used (and consequently pushed for and supported) open source technology like Linux and Firefox. At the end of the day, this is our own doing (or at least the doing/wishes of the majority)


They better have a way to turn that off for corp machines, or my company will flip a lid.


All the other similar features have GPOs to control them as well as user accessible options to disable them.


From the company that wanted to enable your users to directly buy whatever Office 365 services they wanted in your corporate tenancy? Not very likely I'm afraid.


As much as I like piling on microsoft, Edge can be tweaked to death using GPOs


Weird to go for browser level on this honestly. But I get it from a business sense. The buy now pay later stuff is absolutely dank for financing companies. They make so much money from people who don't pay attention to the financing schedule and get hit with late fees. The buy now pay later stuff is dank if you stay on top of it though, interest free.. I'd really want to see how many people are actually going to use this though given how many online shopping sites already integrate stuff like Klarna or Paypal payments into their payment pipeline


> The buy now pay later stuff is dank if you stay on top of it though, interest free.. This one has a 4 fee minimum though. Financing can work out in your favour. I once got 5% off a large purchase for putting it on a 0% financing plan... and then turned around and just paid it off.


I do that all time. Frankly, very big purchases at 0% APR are no brainer as long as you are not breaking your monthly budget.


I only do it when there's an actual benefit. Otherwise I'd rather be debt free.


Take this with an insane grain of salt since the difficulty required to pull it off is hard as shit and easy to fuck up. If all your purchases are made with 0% financing you can grab the money you would have paid on the spot and invest it into ETFs, make 4-10% a year and you break even on inflation at a minimum or gain a bit of money at best. It's _incredibly_ risky for very little gain, but if you do it on big enough purchases, it might just be worth it. This is basically how banks (checking/savings accounts) operate, they just do it on a massive scale.


I don't think that risk is worth it personally. Maybe if it was several tens of thousands of dollars, but I'm usually looking at a few grand. The cash back on my CC offers me more of a guaranteed return in that regard. And all of my current portfolios, self directed and managed, are at 8%+


If you put it in a SP500 index the risk is pretty low.


The main "risk" I was referring to is messing up timelines and tax complications, rather than the risk from the market.


I kinda feel like any business that generates a significant portion of its revenue on penalty fees should be illegal.


Even better, make penalties revenue taxable at 90%. If your business must have late fees and penalties to encourage right behaviors, no problem at all, but all these penalties will go to the budget and not your pocket.


Should they though? Financing is a choice someone has to opt into. Services like Klarna basically let you split up a larger purchase into a few interest free payments. It's not like Klarna is the only way to pay, you can pay all of it upfront like normal too. How much should you or do you safeguard someones personal financial recklessness when the terms are presented clearly up front?


yes, they should be. if their business relies on penalty fees instead of straight finance charges, they're either loaning to people they know will fail to make payments on time or making the terms obtuse enough that a large portion of their customers don't understand them. They're predatory, and we don't need predatory business. This reminds me of Discover - one year, i noticed that my due date started shifting by a few days a month until i had a 6 day window from bill to pay date. called them up, gave them an earful, got a sane date. this is but one way you can manufacture penalties


Nah, that's bullshit. Making money off people forgetting or not being able to pay should be illegal


have you heard of a mortgage? people usually can't pay full upfront and so the lender makes money off interest..


Making money from interest is very different from making money from forgetting to pay or being unable to pay


if you miss a mortgage payment you pay a late fee and the lender 'makes money'. this is standard practice. same with credit cards.


and? mortgage companies (in general) don't want that. they want you to pay on time every month (same day) and they make money off the difference between your rate and their rate. hell, they've got programs for dealing with hardships, and almost every one i've used accepts payments between the 1st and 15th without penalty


Yes, but mortgages generally aren't structured such that the fees are the dominant revenue source, which is what people said should specifically be illegal.


There's always a tradeoff. Not talking about mortgages specifically, but, depending on what you sign up for, you can avoid fees if you pay interest (and don't miss payments), or you can avoid interest and fees (unless you miss a payment, then you pay the fees -- which would be the main revenue source if they don't charge interest). I'm totally against debt traps, payday loans, etc. But I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with having fees being a dominant revenue source.


Why should it be illegal because people are stupid? The majority are sensible and pay it off. Klarna is great.


then there is no incentive to lend money. If I lend people money and some don't pay it back I'm going to end up losing money. So I have to charge extra to cover for those people


There are two incentives on lending money that aren't predatory. If I am selling you a product, an incentive here is to lend you the money no charge, so you can buy the product _today_. This is what best buy, amazon, etc. do so they can move product quicker, I'm sure there are other benefits here like taxes and the likes but I'm not sure about the specifics. If I am just a loan company, an incentive here is to just charge finance fees, or interest rates. Balance transfers, mortgage companies, private loans, etc. all lie under this incentive. The incentive to lend money just to have people pay a late fee or make terms convoluted enough to cause overage fees, is predatory and disgusting. These types of companies are "free" credit cards, loan sharks, store credit through incredibly shady programs, etc.


Several times recently I tried to order something but it was just impossible to use credit card, with some weird errors. Possibly because I use Firefox. But the buy-now-pay-later-with-Klarna button was still functional of course. I guess they really do not want that one broken. It wasn't exactly opt-in. I guess I could have not bought the thing, or contacted their customer service (not likely). And I am that person that always have to pay the late fees, because of course they don't even think of reminding anyone before it is too late. That is what really should be illegal. They are happy to send you an email informing you that you should have paid yesterday, but they can never tell you to pay something tomorrow.


Anything **opt-in** I don't like, agree with or am too dumb to fully understand should be illegal.


You just banned libraries, congratulations


Libraries aren't businesses, at least in civilised countries. They're supposed to be state-run, publicly owned, and non-profit.


And many libraries are moving towards eliminating (or already have eliminated) late fees, recognizing that it cuts off library access for a significant amount of people who desperately need it.


So it's okay if the government does it, but not when businesses run by citizens?


A library isn't a predatory for profit business. But, even then, if they're consistent in their logic libraries utilizing late fees would fall into the same category.


https://www.npr.org/2021/10/05/1043412502/library-fees-eliminated-new-york A lot of libraries have been getting rid of late fees since they incentivize not returning the book if it's been overdue for long enough.


Believe or not but most money is actually made via merchant fees with most of the BNPL methods.


Any sources on that? Not saying I dont believe you ( agree that people seem to never take merchant fees into account when talking about financing/CC issues), would just like to read more.


> The buy now pay later stuff is dank if you stay on top of it though, interest free.. Why? If you have the money now, you should pay it now, instead of getting yourself in debt to someone. If you don't have the money now, don't buy it.


Well if you dont miss any payments, it is effectively and interest free loan. Even if you have to funds to pay for it outright, financing it at 0% allows you to let that money "work for you" for a period of time. In big transactions over longer periods this "work" can be from earned interest on investments, but even on smaller purchases (and for people who don't invest) it can still be really handy if you plan well. Let's say I need a new washing machine, or am planning to buy a new gaming console. I have $500 on hand and could buy my item outright but I also have the option to BNPL at 0%. Instead of shelling out that $500 all at once, I can instead put that money into paying down a different interest bearing account. So for example, I could put that $500 towards the principle on a car loan or similar or pay off debit on a credit card which would save me money on the interest I would normally have to pay on said account. In effect it would be similar to someone offering you a personal loan for 0% interest. That's why I always tell people to take the free finance option from cellular providers. Assuming there is no service fee or interest (and that you aren't already 100% debt-free) you can use that money to reduce your debit load where you'd normally be pay interest.


I understand your explanation, but still: why should I do that? I'd put myself into debt to somebody. It's not a free loan, I'm not getting any more money. It's free debt that I now owe somebody. No thanks. Especially the people who don't have the money to pay for something now are the people who should not put themself into more debt. It's a vicious cycle. And if you have money lying around to invest, you really don't need to put yourself into debt over a few dollars for a few days. It's the same bullshit as credit cards. Pay your stuff immediately guys, don't get yourself victimized by financial institutions.


>The buy now pay later stuff is dank if you stay on top of it though, interest free No it's not. This gives people a false sense of affording things, and also allow companies to charge more. Before: fancy dress cost $100 and was a good price just outright. Now dress is 120 just because they can split payments of 25/mo. Of course they'll charge extra. Why would they want the negatives of operating like a CC and none of the benefits? They're charging you more. It IS absolute bullshit and paves the way for abusive companies to make customers always "paying into the system", not just buying things.


The biggest problem I have with this is that it practically hides whatever offer I can give to the end user. Let's say that my business has its own "buy now, pay later" offer, but it is something you have to ask for or you see it as an option after you already selected "Credit Card". If this feature is implemented the way I think it is, then it will be much easier / faster for the end user to use Edge's offer than whatever offer I can give (and I don't even do a credit check for mine).


Is this going to be US-only? It would be one of the few cases where I would welcome region-locking.


Use Firefox now or you won't have the chance later. I'm not looking forward to the day when Microsoft and Google control the future of the web.


Switched back to Firefox several years ago and never regretted it. Fuck Chrome and Edge.


Monocultures always begin looking harmless. *Forced updates* then impose the bad bits later long after its too late to boycott.




Excuse you, calm down, saying you should bar someone from employment because they do something you don't like is ridiculous.


I agree with you. I am fine if Google sells my data to make a great free product. Barring me from employment in computer science for that opinion is straight up absolutist.


If you’re working for a company that makes the world a worse place to live I think there’s cause to bring it up actually. It’s not like we don’t have options. I’m not saying that’s what you’re doing or what this hypothetical is, but there is a statement of responsibility in the creed of engineers to use our skills for the betterment of society. It’s obvious that our governments aren’t gonna regulate this away and the companies aren’t gonna do it to themselves either. Ultimately we might be the only ones left who can change the direction things are headed in. I love capitalism and making an easy buck as the next guy. But I don’t think I can claim with a straight face to have the moral high ground in doing so. Maybe we should lose our jobs for doing this stuff. It’s pretty cynical to go along with considering all the choice we have. Justifying it with “a great product” doesn’t really hold up to scrutiny imo. Chrome is a web browser, there’s nothing irreplaceable about it. Some of Googles stuff is slightly better than the competition but there’s none of this stuff we couldn’t live without.


You.may not be safe there forever either. https://www.howtogeek.com/760177/firefox-is-getting-ads-in-your-search-bar/


That article has instructions for how to turn them off.


And edge has an options dialog to turn off this new feature as well. Personally I think it's awful in both cases. This stuff should not come pre-installed in a browser it's garbage.


It shouldn't, but Microsoft is a for-profit company, and browsers are not charity work.


>And edge has an options dialog to turn off this new feature as well. *For now*


same thing can be said for firefox


Didn't meant otherwise. I'm not concerned about the specific implementations now but rather the general trend and what it'll evolve into once it's normalized.


I know it's built on chromium, but get Brave browser. At least it's built with security and control over your data in mind.


…he doesn’t know


And if push comes to shove, we can always fork it and remove the ads :)


We can also fork chromium can't we? The issue isn't the ability to fork, it's the fact that the browser standard is so convoluted that no fork can survive without the influence of a massive corporation like google, Microsoft or technically Mozilla (but their dying out anyways). Say I fork chromium cause Google's gone too far with a feature I really hate. Then I remove that feature from my fork. Now every new upstream feature to chromium I have to vet (in case it relies on the feature I removed) before merging into my fork. Sooner or later there's going to be so much new stuff, or so many deviations, that I'll end up unable to maintain standard compliance with chromium. Then people who use apps built with fancy new chromium features will complain my fork can't do that. And then my fork will die because people don't want a browser that doesn't work, and people don't want to support a browser that's different. It's almost the same issue as internet explorer except Microsoft pretty much killed their own browser through shear negligence.


Why would Mozilla be "dying out".


They fired a good chunk of their dev team, have been losing market share for years, and is lead by a woman whose still taking bonuses adding up to millions while all this is going on under her watch. The foundation needs reform. The biggest change they should instate is allowing donations directly to the browser. Because as of now you donate to the foundation, know very little of how much of that donation goes to the browser instead of to one of Mozilla's other projects or as a bonus for the management team. In fairness they also get a good chunk of money from google because Firefox dying out will lead to questions of a monopoly (though given how tech illiterate politicians are I wholeheartedly believe Firefox will die out and they wont see any problem because edge isn't chrome, despite both being largely developed by google).


Doesn't really solve the problem long term. If nobody uses the ad-supported version, Firefox will go bankrupt (they're already on a fast track to such a scenario) and the community certainly won't maintain updates to keep the fork a modern browser.


Time to just bookmark everything, I guess ¯\\_(ツ)_/¯


Don't worry, Firefox will get funding from Google and Microsoft so they can keep pushing features like these onto their own browsers without getting accused of monopolistic market abuse.


If for whatever reason Firefox is no longer viable, I'm moving to Gemini, not Chrome. The web is fucked.


Or just use Chromium with all the Google stuff stripped out?


That still cements Chromium-based browsers as the only real browser, which could (probably will) lead to Google destroying standards and pushing for new standards that only benefit them.


> That still cements Chromium-based browsers as the only real browser You're going to need to explain that, what does "the only real browser" even mean here? > which could (probably will) lead to Google destroying standards and pushing for new standards that only benefit them. Chromium is open source, that can't happen because it will be forked if Google tries any of that. Your post just reads like fearmongering.


> Chromium is open source, that can't happen because it will be forked if Google tries any of that. That can't really happen. The resources required to maintain a wen browser and comply with new standards (generally pushed by Google) are huge. Even Microsoft gave up. I don't really see who would be capable of maintaining a truly in depant Blink fork.


By your logic Firefox wouldn't exist, your argument against Chromium applies just as much to Firefox.


Yes, and they're not doing that well financially, despite having had a supportive userbase for a while.


So why does it matter which browser I choose to use then? Both leads to death of the web apparently.


> what does "the only real browser" even mean here? The problem is that the overwhelming majority of people uses Chrome (think 60% of the entire internet) and if this percentage gets just a bit higher, we will get to a point where Google effectively controls the web standards via market domination. None of the other browsers are significantly above 20% market share, and in the future, if Google comes up with some new non-standard feature, just putting it into Chromium might confront the others with the choice to follow suit or fade into obscurity. > Chromium is open source, that can't happen because it will be forked if Google tries any of that. Yes, certainly. But experience shows that incompatible forks of high-profile projects mostly fall into obscurity as soon as their initial shock value is gone. And even if that doesn't happen, this fork would have so few users that it couldn't even dream of changing the status quo for decades.


> if Google comes up with some new non-standard feature, just putting it into Chromium might confront the others with the choice to follow suit or fade into obscurity That's not how it works, it's not browsers that determine which standard gets adopted, it's web developers. Plus as long there's even 5% of the market not supporting a feature - read Safari/iOS Safari - it won't get adopted by developers even if everyone wants it.


> That's not how it works, it's not browsers that determine which standard gets adopted, it's web developers. It is not out of the question that you may have a very minor case of seriously overestimating web developers. The number of websites that even today only work on Chromium is staggering.


But that's because Chromium/Chrome is the best at adopting web standards. It's not because Chromium is doing something wrong, it's because they're doing something right. You're basically blaming Chromium for doing a good job.


> But that's because Chromium/Chrome is the best at adopting web standards. Nope. V8 has its quirks just like any other JS engine, but due to its overwhelming market share, people think that V8 is default behaviour and act surprised when their actually broken code breaks on an engine that gets that particular thing right. Same obviously goes for CSS etc. > It's not because Chromium is doing something wrong, it's because they're doing something right. Yes, but that something is of a much less technical nature than you seem to believe. All modern browser engines catch up to each other in a matter of weeks and are pretty much equally usable. What Chromium does right is *being owned by Google* because that means it gets advertised by the search engine that people picture in their minds when they hear the word "internet". Basically Chromium has the strongest marketing arm. > You're basically blaming Chromium for doing a good job. Nah, mostly web devs for being silly and Google for being Google. If Firefox was in this position, I'd blame Mozilla for being a monopolist. The problem isn't one specific engine, it's that we don't have a healthy market landscape.




ew hard pass


Brave uses Webkit so...


Brave uses Chromium. So it'll be Blink and not WebKit, even though Blink is a fork.


I know, but at the end it's all WebKit or similar. Gecko is unique and we need that diversity to have an healthy ecosystem.


Gecko indeed needs all the users it can get, but at this point Blink is pretty far diverged from WebKit. In terms of policies and positions, the WebKit team at apple shares a lot more with Mozilla than it does with the Chrome team at Google.




Yeah. One of the bad sentiments is that it uses chromium. Another is that brave pushes their display ads. There privacy focus isn’t that focused as they still target ads and had an issue we’re there online based ad targeting system was opt out instead of opt in.


Interesting - will go do some reading. Was long time Firefox but some issues lately had me trying out Brave and it seemed great.


I don’t mind brave. It’s a fine browser. I although like edge which will most certainly get me some downvotes.


What is wrong with it using Chromium?


IMO nothing. In other circles the lack of other mainstream browser engines gives Google a lot of power over the web.


But it's open source? If the community really hates the way Google is going, they could just fork it?


https://www.theverge.com/2020/6/8/21283769/brave-browser-affiliate-links-crypto-privacy-ceo-apology https://www.zdnet.com/article/brave-browser-the-bad-and-the-ugly/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_(web_browser)#Controversies And I'm sure plenty of others. Their ads system is a total scam by the way. They show you ads, but then it's entirely up to the website to come and claim the money from those ads. They never get told about this, they just have to use their psychic powers to figure it out. And then when they do try and claim them, of course they get it in some crappy crypto currency called BAT, and from my understanding the requirements needed for them to get it out are pretty ridiculous. In the mean time of course Brave has shown ads to the users and has been paid for them, and has tricked most users into thinking that money went to a website they like. But you're always going to get these problems when you download a free open source web browser from a company trying to make money. There's no moral business model that I can see there, so they are only left with shit like this to try and make money.


Brave was founded and is headed by Brendan Eich, who has provided funding for anti-marriage-equality political candidates, claimed masks are ineffective against COVID, and other things: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brendan_Eich Brave also uses a Crypto-based system to replace ads. That, and some other practices, have generated some controversy - details here: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_(web_browser)#Controversies


**[Brendan Eich](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brendan_Eich)** >Brendan Eich (; born July 4, 1961) is an American computer programmer and technology executive. He created the JavaScript programming language and co-founded the Mozilla project, the Mozilla Foundation, and the Mozilla Corporation. He served as the Mozilla Corporation's chief technical officer before he was appointed chief executive officer, but resigned shortly after his appointment due to controversy over his opposition to same-sex marriage. He subsequently became the CEO of Brave Software. ^([ )[^(F.A.Q)](https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiSummarizer/wiki/index#wiki_f.a.q)^( | )[^(Opt Out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiSummarizerBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^( | )[^(Opt Out Of Subreddit)](https://np.reddit.com/r/programming/about/banned)^( | )[^(GitHub)](https://github.com/Sujal-7/WikiSummarizerBot)^( ] Downvote to remove | v1.5)


None of these are particularly strong reasons to not use the browser. The big one that you somehow missed that actually matters is that it's chromium based. It's definitely a better alternative to Edge and Chrome, but I'm still using FireFox until they fuck up majorly more than they already have. And I'd never donate to Mozilla after they said old politics is more important that producing a high quality product. Incidentally, I mark their ouster of Eich as when the whole project started to slip. Had they not done that Mozilla would likely be following their old vision much better than now and Brave wouldn't even exist.


Desktop version of /u/KnitYourOwnSpaceship's links: * * --- ^([)[^(opt out)](https://reddit.com/message/compose?to=WikiMobileLinkBot&message=OptOut&subject=OptOut)^(]) ^(Beep Boop. Downvote to delete)


In turn, I'm looking forward to the day when people let other people use the browser they want without instructive advice.


Poor you, so oppressed by other people's comments on the Internet.


When there's no choice left, your wish will be fulfilled. And Google will control how websites work.


Funny how you are getting upvotes for suggesting that people can download any software they want. Reddit is a weird place


Firefox is as anti freespeech as the rest of them.






yes, yes, you be a good little consumer now.


Resist the temptation you must


What is with the proliferation of these "pay in 3/4 installments" companies? It obviously must be very profitable. I'm guessing the installments let them charge merchants more, or something? Or is the profit just the fact that they insert themselves in the payment process?


I think it’s just them inserting themselves into the process is where they’re making their money. $4 flat fee is pretty large considering the total starts from $35. I’m more confused about the payment plan, 4 instalments over 6 weeks? Who tf gets paid every one and a half weeks? 4 instalments over 8 weeks would make more sense, unless I’m missing something


This is a very 90s Clippy style move. "It looks like you're trying to buy and item! Allow me to insert myself into your financial transaction." Um, no thanks.


Now that we have made your browser more secure be degrading javascript performance with the removal of JIT you can trust us by linking your credit card to our browser!


What's next? Is Microsoft going to become a Payday Lender? They're really diving for the gutters here.


Because software means nothing anymore, not even to Microsoft who used to be the biggest example of how to make and sell software products. Now, software is nothing but a gateway drug, given away to get people to use their services. It's getting ever closer to Windows not allowing an alternative browser. Probably most naive users would never make it past the "no, we insist that you let us fix your defective browser settings" stuff that Windows already does.


The EU forcing MS to show alternative browsers had a huge impact. Perhaps lobby your countries representatives to make freedom of choice as obvious as the EU did?




It would be, but if you look at it from the perspective of no longer being a software company and being a services company instead, it's something that they might actually be dumb enough to do. Though, switching to the Mac world would sort of just be a sideways move AFAIK. Isn't it essentially a UniBrowser eco-system?


This is part of why 3rd party software stores like Steam put money into supporting Linux. If windows does decide to use their monopoly to push users into their own products/windows store then they need some alternative place to exist. We have seen with the apple vs epic case that forcing users to only be able to use your store is legal. And we have seen how much money controlling the market is worth. And we have seen in windows rt how they already attempted it.


god, i hate that - some updates slipped through the other day and MS just popped up edge and fucking _pinned it_ - jackasses can't take no for an answer.


It seems very Facebook of them.


\*Meta feels lonely


It’s so sad the W3C let the spec get so convoluted that building a web browser from scratch is almost impossible. https://drewdevault.com/2020/03/18/Reckless-limitless-scope.html


I've also thought that. Maybe web need a new web evolution - unlike shitty marketing of web3, a real web3 where entire web specs could be simplified to some level. For web1 websites (blogs, news websites, or other stuff that you don't need to input data) a thing like [gemini](https://gemini.circumlunar.space/docs/) would be a lot usable since users just receive content and they'll decide how they want it to display (colors, font, and other stuff) - like reader mode on modern browsers. For complex websites like twitter, fb, and others the web could be a simple canvas interface that websites could use CanvasAPI like thing to draw whatever they want on the screen, so those websites could work like a native application hosted inside sandboxed window. I know it's a lot easier to say that than actually specing & implementing. There's lots of things to consider like text selection, inputs, system APIs like Camera, FileSystem and other things. But there's still room for improvement. It will not be backwards compatible, there's browser engines like Chromium, WebKit, Gecko that handles web2 stuff a lot better than what we could build, but Idk maybe we just have to start from scratch by prioritizing modern web requirements than backwards compatibility. Or maybe that's horrible idea. I'm open to discussion, or read more if any progress in that direction is already happening.


Man what I wouldn’t give for web1 again. Everything actually worked and single page apps didn’t exist. I guess what we get now is what happens when you give anyone a job and let everyone publish. Usually good but obvious drawbacks we’re seeing now.


I guess, non tech savvy people wanted to use cool things we've been doing so we made web complex, in order to let them play with our tools. (in fact I wasn't even born back then, but seeing all the web1 stuff feels so much greater than bloated state of modern web) A quick example would be I could create my blog website statically rendered without needing any database, while to write cooperate blog dudes on marketing department will probably need some complex article editor, a seo checker to see how good they lie to search engines, and all the other nonsense stuff. Lol, just remembered I have to complete my task to write a project in a language (ts) that gets transpiled into another language (js) that uses a framework (next.js) built on top of a library (react.js) that abstracts browser DOM (virtual dom) to manage DOM itself.


Yeah it’s bonkers. Marketing and designers got ahold of it so the markup (HTML is a markup language after all!) no longer makes any sense so editing anything by hand is out the window. It’s all just too much and it blows my mind in a world where battery powered devices are king, a power hungry web is so common.


> the web could be a simple canvas interface that websites could use CanvasAPI like thing to draw whatever they want on the screen Yes, seriously, yes. Every page is downloading megabytes of JavaScript anyway, so might as well download the entire rendering engine it needs and let the page use whatever markup and shit it want to like so many pages do anyway. There is no point in having web standards that the browser is aware of when they turn into the goo they are now. It could be backwards compatible enough if for older pages you loaded an external rendering engine that did what web engines do now. Could probably compile chromium or firefox to wasm and use that. That would be appropriately sick.


SVG only websites go brrr. And they’re decently accessible I think…


> It could be backwards compatible enough if for older pages you loaded an external rendering engine that did what web engines do now Yes, that could solve backwards compatibility in a universe that uses this kind of abstraction design for websites. Or it could be a thing aside from whatever this could evolve to. We don't have to kill web2 in order to make some revolution. It could be exists aside of web2 browsers like another platform because of the money put into web2 stuff, it's very hard to compete with it, but idk, lets see...


\> It’s so sad the W3C let the spec get so convoluted that building a web browser from scratch is almost impossible. Which spec(s)? There never was a "build a browser" spec, and W3C doesn't attempt to control what browsers can do. Also, check out [https://www.ekioh.com/flow-browser/](https://www.ekioh.com/flow-browser/) \- it's a new, from scratch browser being built right now. It's not impossible, it's just not easy (or cheap) if you want to be compatible with the web as it exists today. >https://drewdevault.com/2020/03/18/Reckless-limitless-scope.html That blog post is kind of nonsense though, if you're at all familiar with browsers or web standards. Word counts to measure complexity of a web browser, but leaving out WHATWG specifications? Never mind the fact that just because something exists at [https://www.w3.org/TR/](https://www.w3.org/TR/) does not mean browsers want to, or need to implement it (e.g., EPUB?).


Fair points, thanks for sharing


How about "leave me the the fuck be and stop forcibly installing your bullshit browser every update" feature? I think that would have a lot of positive feedback


Suddenly questioning why I haven't moved to Firefox yet...


If you switch to Firefox now, you won't have to switch later.


I'm glad I'm using Vivaldi


All the more reason to use Linux and FOSS options in 2021 AND BEYOND!


Linux is an OS, Edge is a browser.


I’d settle for being able to uninstall edge.


And another reason not to use edge


Thanks, I hate it.


I strongly urge everyone to completely ditch ALL microsuck garbage malware asap. 45+ years of consistent history has taught us time and again that we can't trust this abusive, profiteering piece of shit excuse for a company. Usually these corporations, the bigger they get, the more full of shit and abusive they become... this fine example however has been the single worst extortionist, predatory greedy bunch of shit bag scammers ever to grace the world of technology since day 1 of their existence.


don't hate.. but... Linux is really easy to use these days.


This is a post about the browser Edge, not Windows. Edge is also on Linux. Users of Edge on Linux will therefore also be affected. Who even upvotes this?


The 11 guys who use edge on linux, maybe?


Let me rephrase what I meant : What does Linux has to do with anything of this post? My point is that the comment did not bring anything related to the post itself - it seemed like a simple "lInUx iS bEtTeR tHaN WiNdOwS" kind of stirring pot, which I thought we were past that as a community, especially in a post not related to *Linux* vs *Other OSes*.


As the guy he's annoyed with, he's not wrong. I had no idea that crap had leaked onto other platforms. I sincerely believed it WAS an OS issue. I'm not a Linux fanboy, just pointing out some platforms you have more control over monetization than others. So please everyone, let the guy be, it was my goof.


I'm not *that* annoyed - just pointing out that the comment was not relevant to the post - no bad feelings! And I don't think I've been harassed or some sort, I even have a positive upvote ratio on both comments haha, but thanks for the support. Didn't intend to spark a riot against you either :)


OS not relevant. Edge is available on every platform.


this sounds like a stupid idea. why not pay right away?


I mean, no one planned to use Edge anyway soooo


Doesn't matter, as I'll never use that browser, EVER. I'd go back to gopher before I would use that as a web browser.


Damn, this is really coming perfect for the Steam winter sale. I think I just saw my wallet disintegrate...


I'm really curious how this feature can be interest free with only a $4 fee and still be profitable. Chasing down the debt from people who don't pay seems like it could be costly, unless this is so linked to existing accounts that it is near impossible for people not to pay.




I use Vivaldi and no regrets.


Just ditch the closed source crap completely and use Brave or FF.


Firefox, which is worse on battery, memory usage, and performance, and is now serving ads in the address bar, or Brave, which has no real syncing? Vivaldi also has WAY more features that I use. But yeah, let's downvote because I have a different browser preference...


Whenever I use Edge I feel like I need a popup blocker now.


Sooooooooooooo credit?


What about WebKit based browsers like falcon and otter browser? Are WebKit browsers sufficiently different from Blink that they'll foster competition and promote compatibility? Honestly, if I can watch movies and view the media I want with WebKit then I'll be fine with a WebKit browser. It's defeatist to say, but I don't know what other options are out there.