4 ms·

We started with Gecko in 2015, but it lost on many dimensions in a head to head comparison enumerating gaps vs. Chrome. DRM is just one example. We don't like D

We started with Gecko in 2015, but it lost on many dimensions in a head to head comparison enumerating gaps vs. Chrome. DRM is just one example. We don't like DRM, but users want Netflix to work, and Google makes WideVine free-as-in-beer; whereas at the time, Mozilla had an Adobe deal that did not extend to non-Firefox Gecko embeddings. So we switched to chromium/Blink in late 2015. Much later, when I visited Apple in early 2017, a devrel friend asked why we couldn't use WebKit. A WebKit founder in the meeting agreed with me that there was no way for Brave to do so on Windows w/o running out of capital. DRM again was an issue too, without WideVine. Don’t blame startup for not carrying a full engine — that needs deep pockets. While MS does have deep enough pockets, it is starting by using chromium/Blink and slow-forking.

igravious 7y ago
Hey, thanks for everything you've done for open source and open platforms. The reason you gave here for Brave not choosing Gecko (or WebKit) is interesting – but given Microsoft's deep pockets and tech know-how those reasons don't apply to them. I think this is a strategic blunder on Microsoft's part and I say this as a Linux user. :) Microsoft has now warmly embraced Linux – and I think they could have chosen this time to warmly embrace Mozilla. Oh well.
- BrendanEich 7y ago
  Microsoft was slowly losing browser share with their own engine, felt they needed more web compatibility (including de facto via the WebKit lineage) and extensions sooner. They were not going to play a long game, even if they could afford it. Mozilla may have looked wobbly to them, too.
  - igravious 7y ago
    Didn't see your reply before this, sorry. I hear what you're saying – but! – a tech giant has to play the long game. The Web is an open (for now) platform and Microsoft, like Apple, like Google, need to have their own web client/server implementation. Makes no sense to be beholden to Google imho. I'm stunned at how little desktop browser share Edge has (4.6%): https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share/desktop/worldwide https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share/desktop/worl... – however, changing browser engine is not going to change that, is it? I suppose, if Google and Microsoft end up equally and democratically sharing Chromium development then all's well. Given the recent layoffs at Mozilla it's a pity (in hindsight – for the benefit of the open web) Microsoft didn't back them :( Anyhow, thanks for the response.
- forgot-my-pw 7y ago
  Surely Microsoft has done their homework: researched everything and weigh the pros & cons. This is a big thing and the next step in their browser strategy. We can only guess their reasons, but clearly in their eyes, Chromium codebase is the better choice.
  - igravious 7y ago
    True, but big companies can sometimes make big mistakes, no?
samantohermes 7y ago
Waterfox (a rebuild) and Basilisk (a hard fork) are based on Firefox, but they have Widevine.

igravious 7y ago

Hey, thanks for everything you've done for open source and open platforms. The reason you gave here for Brave not choosing Gecko (or WebKit) is interesting – but given Microsoft's deep pockets and tech know-how those reasons don't apply to them. I think this is a strategic blunder on Microsoft's part and I say this as a Linux user. :) Microsoft has now warmly embraced Linux – and I think they could have chosen this time to warmly embrace Mozilla. Oh well.

BrendanEich 7y ago
Microsoft was slowly losing browser share with their own engine, felt they needed more web compatibility (including de facto via the WebKit lineage) and extensions sooner. They were not going to play a long game, even if they could afford it. Mozilla may have looked wobbly to them, too.
- igravious 7y ago
  Didn't see your reply before this, sorry. I hear what you're saying – but! – a tech giant has to play the long game. The Web is an open (for now) platform and Microsoft, like Apple, like Google, need to have their own web client/server implementation. Makes no sense to be beholden to Google imho. I'm stunned at how little desktop browser share Edge has (4.6%): https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share/desktop/worldwide https://gs.statcounter.com/browser-market-share/desktop/worl... – however, changing browser engine is not going to change that, is it? I suppose, if Google and Microsoft end up equally and democratically sharing Chromium development then all's well. Given the recent layoffs at Mozilla it's a pity (in hindsight – for the benefit of the open web) Microsoft didn't back them :( Anyhow, thanks for the response.
forgot-my-pw 7y ago
Surely Microsoft has done their homework: researched everything and weigh the pros & cons. This is a big thing and the next step in their browser strategy. We can only guess their reasons, but clearly in their eyes, Chromium codebase is the better choice.
- igravious 7y ago
  True, but big companies can sometimes make big mistakes, no?

samantohermes 7y ago

Waterfox (a rebuild) and Basilisk (a hard fork) are based on Firefox, but they have Widevine.