3 ms·
If you read through some of the comments in the thread, the "niche browser" argument doesn't really make sense given that 1) 1Password supported Arc browser, w
by kixpanganiban 4y ago
If you read through some of the comments in the thread, the "niche browser" argument doesn't really make sense given that
1) 1Password supported Arc browser, which is in closed beta, with a miniscule fraction of Orion's userbase
2) Other than an allowlist of sorts so the browser extension can communicate with the Desktop agent, there's no technical reason why the effort would outweigh the benefits (for the users)
- pns 4y agoThe effort may outweigh the costs if there are higher value projects this would be prioritized against (including the on-going support burden) For example, a project that made Chrome users 1% better off is probably worth far more to the overall 1pw user base.
- olliej 4y ago(1) Where do you find usage numbers? Both are niche (2) No, the cost of supporting a browser is the cost of supporting that browser's users. Even if the entirety of the changes required to enable it is simply adding "com.kagi.orion" or some such to a plist, there's a cost to responding to every "it doesn't work here" message. Arc looks to be VC funded so it seems plausible they could have a commercial agreement with 1password, or it's possible that they raised 17 million to make a chrome wrapper and so have exactly chrome's web extension implementation which would reduce support costs to zero (though I do wish someone would give me 17million for some random project :D )
- kennethreitz 4y agolol like tech companies are so consistient with their products nowadays