5 ms·

Brave, DuckDuckGo, Vivaldi, etc... are examples of the parasitic products that are trying to make use of the current privacy paranoia to earn a very tiny market

Brave, DuckDuckGo, Vivaldi, etc... are examples of the parasitic products that are trying to make use of the current privacy paranoia to earn a very tiny market share while they aren't any different from the big players. They only look innocent because they are small not because they are different.

prepend 8y ago
How do you think these products are parasitic? And how do you think they add the same as Chrome? I’m not familiar with Vivaldi, but DDG has a different business model because it’s self imposed limitations on user data that has privacy sensitivity. And Brave is quite different as it eschews ads altogether and rather uses its Basic Attention Token for users to directly find sites and take a cut [0]. This method requires no user data and is really different that Chrome that requires extensive user personal data to maintain its desired profit margins. [0] https://brave.com/faq-payments/#what-is-brave-payments https://brave.com/faq-payments/#what-is-brave-payments
Bayart 8y ago
I don't think Vivaldi markets to privacy-obsessed users, and it's quite different from anything out there.
StevePerkins 8y ago
You can make a thin argument about Brave being parasitic. Blocking ads, but allowing people to opt-in to ads for which Brave takes a cut. But I don't even see any argument at all for bringing DuckDuckGo or Vivaldi into the discussion. * DDG is a search engine that doesn't track its users. It kinda sorta emulates Google's look-and-feel, but so does Bing and Wolfram Alpha and search.yahoo.com and everyone else. * Vivaldi is yet another Chromium-based browser, for the microscopic niche of Opera fans who feel that Opera "went mainstream". If it's parasitic to base a browser on Chromium, then Chrome itself is a parasite for forking off KDE's WebKit. Are you arguing that using privacy concerns as a marketing tool, to compete for a slice of Google's monopoly, makes one a "parasite"? Because not only is that a poor argument in the abstract, it doesn't even apply as Vivaldi doesn't really promote itself on privacy grounds.
theonemind 8y ago
I think that a small company has to treat their users more carefully. Big companies get various kinds of lock-in (depending on the product): inertia, user familiarity, network effects, and a large percentage of the users that don't do things like put thought into their choices and switch. I think that they will tend to behave better as small companies. Most large companies started off as small companies doing good things. But you should probably accept that if they become dominant players, you will have to jump ship again at some point. I don't know about "paranoia". Google, Facebook, etc. can gather a lot of information and perform very sophisticated analysis on it, and aside from what we know they do with it, they can accidentally leak it, get compromised, or just flat-out get more evil in what they can and will do with it as time goes on.

prepend 8y ago

How do you think these products are parasitic? And how do you think they add the same as Chrome? I’m not familiar with Vivaldi, but DDG has a different business model because it’s self imposed limitations on user data that has privacy sensitivity. And Brave is quite different as it eschews ads altogether and rather uses its Basic Attention Token for users to directly find sites and take a cut [0]. This method requires no user data and is really different that Chrome that requires extensive user personal data to maintain its desired profit margins. [0] https://brave.com/faq-payments/#what-is-brave-payments https://brave.com/faq-payments/#what-is-brave-payments

Bayart 8y ago

I don't think Vivaldi markets to privacy-obsessed users, and it's quite different from anything out there.

StevePerkins 8y ago

You can make a thin argument about Brave being parasitic. Blocking ads, but allowing people to opt-in to ads for which Brave takes a cut. But I don't even see any argument at all for bringing DuckDuckGo or Vivaldi into the discussion. * DDG is a search engine that doesn't track its users. It kinda sorta emulates Google's look-and-feel, but so does Bing and Wolfram Alpha and search.yahoo.com and everyone else. * Vivaldi is yet another Chromium-based browser, for the microscopic niche of Opera fans who feel that Opera "went mainstream". If it's parasitic to base a browser on Chromium, then Chrome itself is a parasite for forking off KDE's WebKit. Are you arguing that using privacy concerns as a marketing tool, to compete for a slice of Google's monopoly, makes one a "parasite"? Because not only is that a poor argument in the abstract, it doesn't even apply as Vivaldi doesn't really promote itself on privacy grounds.

theonemind 8y ago

I think that a small company has to treat their users more carefully. Big companies get various kinds of lock-in (depending on the product): inertia, user familiarity, network effects, and a large percentage of the users that don't do things like put thought into their choices and switch. I think that they will tend to behave better as small companies. Most large companies started off as small companies doing good things. But you should probably accept that if they become dominant players, you will have to jump ship again at some point. I don't know about "paranoia". Google, Facebook, etc. can gather a lot of information and perform very sophisticated analysis on it, and aside from what we know they do with it, they can accidentally leak it, get compromised, or just flat-out get more evil in what they can and will do with it as time goes on.