9 ms·

> On the desktop, Brave provides a 40% to 60% speed increase, and a 2x to 4x speed increase on mobile devices. Mobile users see a direct reduction in both batte

by seibelj 10y ago

> On the desktop, Brave provides a 40% to 60% speed increase, and a 2x to 4x speed increase on mobile devices. Mobile users see a direct reduction in both battery and data plan consumption. Brave also protects users with privacy and security features such as HTTPS Everywhere to encrypt data traffic, fingerprinting shields, phishing protection, malware filtering, and script blocking. Maybe this is a good enough argument to get people to install it. But I seriously doubt you will get people to voluntarily pay money, which is slowly paid out as they surf the web, when the alternative is a free browsing experience with a standard ad blocker. Also, all of their listed benefits to users is accessible on all other major browsers now with existing extensions.

dieselz 10y ago
> But I seriously doubt you will get people to voluntarily pay money I've always been curious about this. I'd definitely pay $25/mo if it was distributed amongst the websites I visit. Bonus points if it would distribute it more heavily to the smaller sites than the bigger ones.
- jerf 10y ago
  By the time you're done manifesting that concretely, you've nearly got Patreon. Yes, it's not quite identical, but, for instance, once you accept that the site still has to opt-in it ceases to be magic.
  - icebraining 10y ago
    Or Flattr.
    - nailer 10y ago
      Or window.payment which Chrome and Safari are already implementing (using Apple Pay and Google Wallet respectively).
- rhino369 10y ago
  If this was required to view sites, I'd definitely pay it. But I also wouldn't go out of my way to do it. I'm sure the right business could pull it off, but I don't think it's going to be voluntary donations.
mdrzn 10y ago
Also, "Brave provides a 40% to 60% speed increase" compared to WHAT? They may even be comparing it with Internet Explorer 6 for all we know.
- sp332 10y ago
  Compared to the same browser with tracking enabled. https://brave.com/#faster https://brave.com/#faster
Mahn 10y ago
It doesn't make much sense to be honest. I've heard about this browser a few times now and I still have no idea how is it supposed to gain traction. The performance/bandwidth benefits of less shitty ads can be had by simply disabling flash and using an ad blocker, and otherwise average people just aren't going to care to switch. As far as I can tell the only reason investors threw $7M at them is because Brendan Eich is involved.
- dman 10y ago
  Disabling javascript takes it one step further.
  - forgotpwtomain 10y ago
    Which breaks HTTP DELETE since HTML5 doesn't have support for it..
    - PeCaN 10y ago
      How so? <form method="post" action="..."> <input type="hidden" name="_method" value="DELETE"/> </form> has been the standard workaround since like… 2005, if not earlier, and works quite fine without JavaScript (assuming your server-side supports it, and most or all common frameworks do).
      - forgotpwtomain 10y ago
        That's a workaround only if the server forges the value of '_method' into method via. Middleware
        PeCaN 10y ago
        > assuming your server-side supports it, and most or all common frameworks do
    - MichaelGG 10y ago
      Seriously, who cares? POST /deleteThing. Done.
Paul-ish 10y ago
I think we need to think two steps ahead here. Say everyone starts using ad blockers and disables flash. Then what? Websites still need to make money. In this case Brave is betting that websites will want to ask for money from their users, but that each website maintaining their own subscription service is not viable. Maybe large websites like WSJ can get people to subscribe, but most probably cannot. Do you want to be subscribed to every website you ever read a single article on? I think Brave in this case is positioning themselves to be the middle man. They want to become an essential layer that sits on top of the ISP. If their vision of the future turns out to be accurate, being the first mover here will be very profitable.
- nugget 10y ago
  You can't reliably adblock vertically integrated sites like Facebook and Google search who sell and serve their own ads on their own domains. There's a scenario wherein monetization as we know it dies for the majority of long-tail sites and content creators migrate en mass to the large platforms in order to survive. Not a great scenario to think about if you love the decentralized nature of the early web but a plausible scenario nonetheless. There a few startups out there trying to "defeat" adblock by allowing smaller sites to mimic the vertically integrated nature of the largest platforms, and counterintuitively the web might be much better off in the long run if they succeed.
  - anexprogrammer 10y ago
    Really? ublock and even adblock seem to cope quite well with both. I haven't unintentionlly seen a Google search ad in a decade, or any Youtube ads. In the case of FB they block 95%+ - periodically a few ads seem to slip through for a day or two at most. So what do you call reliable?
    - Snesker 10y ago
      >I haven't unintentionlly seen a Google search ad in a decade the ads are the particular search results you saw
- 10y ago

by seibelj 10y ago

dieselz 10y ago

> But I seriously doubt you will get people to voluntarily pay money I've always been curious about this. I'd definitely pay $25/mo if it was distributed amongst the websites I visit. Bonus points if it would distribute it more heavily to the smaller sites than the bigger ones.

jerf 10y ago
By the time you're done manifesting that concretely, you've nearly got Patreon. Yes, it's not quite identical, but, for instance, once you accept that the site still has to opt-in it ceases to be magic.
- icebraining 10y ago
  Or Flattr.
  - nailer 10y ago
    Or window.payment which Chrome and Safari are already implementing (using Apple Pay and Google Wallet respectively).
rhino369 10y ago
If this was required to view sites, I'd definitely pay it. But I also wouldn't go out of my way to do it. I'm sure the right business could pull it off, but I don't think it's going to be voluntary donations.

mdrzn 10y ago

Also, "Brave provides a 40% to 60% speed increase" compared to WHAT? They may even be comparing it with Internet Explorer 6 for all we know.

sp332 10y ago
Compared to the same browser with tracking enabled. https://brave.com/#faster https://brave.com/#faster

Mahn 10y ago

It doesn't make much sense to be honest. I've heard about this browser a few times now and I still have no idea how is it supposed to gain traction. The performance/bandwidth benefits of less shitty ads can be had by simply disabling flash and using an ad blocker, and otherwise average people just aren't going to care to switch. As far as I can tell the only reason investors threw $7M at them is because Brendan Eich is involved.

dman 10y ago
Disabling javascript takes it one step further.
- forgotpwtomain 10y ago
  Which breaks HTTP DELETE since HTML5 doesn't have support for it..
  - PeCaN 10y ago
    How so? <form method="post" action="..."> <input type="hidden" name="_method" value="DELETE"/> </form> has been the standard workaround since like… 2005, if not earlier, and works quite fine without JavaScript (assuming your server-side supports it, and most or all common frameworks do).
    - forgotpwtomain 10y ago
      That's a workaround only if the server forges the value of '_method' into method via. Middleware
      - PeCaN 10y ago
        > assuming your server-side supports it, and most or all common frameworks do
  - MichaelGG 10y ago
    Seriously, who cares? POST /deleteThing. Done.

Paul-ish 10y ago

I think we need to think two steps ahead here. Say everyone starts using ad blockers and disables flash. Then what? Websites still need to make money. In this case Brave is betting that websites will want to ask for money from their users, but that each website maintaining their own subscription service is not viable. Maybe large websites like WSJ can get people to subscribe, but most probably cannot. Do you want to be subscribed to every website you ever read a single article on? I think Brave in this case is positioning themselves to be the middle man. They want to become an essential layer that sits on top of the ISP. If their vision of the future turns out to be accurate, being the first mover here will be very profitable.

nugget 10y ago
You can't reliably adblock vertically integrated sites like Facebook and Google search who sell and serve their own ads on their own domains. There's a scenario wherein monetization as we know it dies for the majority of long-tail sites and content creators migrate en mass to the large platforms in order to survive. Not a great scenario to think about if you love the decentralized nature of the early web but a plausible scenario nonetheless. There a few startups out there trying to "defeat" adblock by allowing smaller sites to mimic the vertically integrated nature of the largest platforms, and counterintuitively the web might be much better off in the long run if they succeed.
- anexprogrammer 10y ago
  Really? ublock and even adblock seem to cope quite well with both. I haven't unintentionlly seen a Google search ad in a decade, or any Youtube ads. In the case of FB they block 95%+ - periodically a few ads seem to slip through for a day or two at most. So what do you call reliable?
  - Snesker 10y ago
    >I haven't unintentionlly seen a Google search ad in a decade the ads are the particular search results you saw
10y ago