5 ms·

I've used Arc as my main browser for a few months, and loved the Spaces feature that lets you sandbox cache and cookies. Very similar to Firefox Multi-Account C

by shafyy 3y ago

I've used Arc as my main browser for a few months, and loved the Spaces feature that lets you sandbox cache and cookies. Very similar to Firefox Multi-Account Containers, but the UI is better because you can swipe to the next Space and only see the relevant tabs open. I've switched back to Firefox for a few reasons: 1) Arc is based on Chromium, and I don't want to support Chrome 2) I just couldn't get used to the layout with the tabs on the side instead of the top. It makes the the window narrower, and I found that this worsened my experience on many websites. Yes, you can hide the sidebar, but it's a pain in the ass to always toggle it. 3) I don't think they'll be around in a few years. They're heavily VC-backed, and while they say that they want to monetize via paid team features, I don't see how they could generate enough money to justify VC-style growth. Most likely they will be sold and integrated/closed, or they will shut down. 4) They're "quirky" CEO that does all these videos and weird product updates really irks me in the wrong way. I realize that this is subjective and others might like it, but still.

tapoxi 3y ago
As a counterpoint from someone who's been daily driving Arc since this summer: 1) Most sites are designed for Chrome these days, and our customers also use Chrome or Edge. I get not wanting to support Google itself, but Chromium has become the de-facto standard at this point, and Firefox is actively declining with 6% desktop and 3% overall share. 2) This is a preference thing for sure, I'm a fan of vertical tabs and was previously a Vivaldi user. I really like the design of pinned tabs too, it makes me actually use them. This is a workflow thing and I'd just avoid Arc if you don't like vertical tabs. 3) Who knows, Vivaldi and Brave manage to stick around. The Google integration money doesn't seem to be bad. They also don't need their engineering team to encompass developing the rendering engine, they can focus on the UI.
- yborg 3y ago
  >Firefox is actively declining with 6% desktop It's been dying for at least a decade, and I'll put up my entire NFT stash and bet you it will be here long after Arc has been forgotten. Remember RockMelt? Yeah, nobody else does, either.
  - tapoxi 3y ago
    It's not going to become zero, just irrelevant for developers to test against.
  - gisely 3y ago
    I bet my entire Beanie Baby stash that your NFT stash won't be worth anything by the time you're ready to judge this bet.
- shafyy 3y ago
  > I get not wanting to support Google itself, but Chromium has become the de-facto standard at this point, and Firefox is actively declining with 6% desktop and 3% overall share. That's exactly the reason why I want to support alternative engines like Firefox's.
treyd 3y ago
> They're heavily VC-backed, and while they say that they want to monetize via paid team features This alone is a huge reason not to use it. After the OS/kernel, the browser is probably the most important and security-sentitive program on your computer. Being not free software should be an automatic nonstarter. I don't know why the W3C doesn't fund development of Servo or similar as a foss project given how absolutely essential maintaining a neutral browser (/engine) is for the health of the web.
Ncarpentieri4 3y ago
I also think the quirks/cheeky stuff is a little too much. But I will say I have no desire to go back to any other browser. The side bar, pinning, spaces, favorites have revolutionized the way I use the internet. I think this is the most well thought out product I've seen in years, I would be very sad to not see them survive.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
dmazzoni 3y ago
I'm not sure I understand concerns about not wanting to support anything based on Chromium. Chromium is 100% open-source, and there are Chromium committers from Microsoft, Opera, Samsung, Igalia, Electron, and dozens of other companies, plus some who are affiliated. I understand not wanting to use Google Chrome, but why throw out the whole open-source browser engine? If the argument is that you don't want Google to benefit, then are you going to similarly boycott any other open-source technology that Google created or uses? Are you going to boycott the Linux kernel because Google heavily uses it? Are you going to boycott Kubernetes, Flutter, and Go as well? Are you going to boycott every Electron app too?
- theshrike79 3y ago
  Some of us lived through the IE monoculture days. It's not good for the web if one organisation can dictate what works and what doesn't. If it wasn't for Safari's popularity, Chromium based browsers would consist about 90-95% of all browser traffic.
- asadotzler 3y ago
  Gonna guess you weren't online in the early 2000s when we fought like hell to disrupt Microsoft Trident's 95% browser monopoly that it was using to stall the web so .Net and other MS Windows platforms could hopefully catch up and not be disrupted. We're there again with Chromium, another Trident.
- shafyy 3y ago
  True, Chromium is open source. But as others have stated: Google is the main driver and benfactor of Chromium, and we need more diversity in the browser engine game. The examples you mentioned don't suffer from the same quasi-monopoly structure in the market.

by shafyy 3y ago

tapoxi 3y ago

As a counterpoint from someone who's been daily driving Arc since this summer: 1) Most sites are designed for Chrome these days, and our customers also use Chrome or Edge. I get not wanting to support Google itself, but Chromium has become the de-facto standard at this point, and Firefox is actively declining with 6% desktop and 3% overall share. 2) This is a preference thing for sure, I'm a fan of vertical tabs and was previously a Vivaldi user. I really like the design of pinned tabs too, it makes me actually use them. This is a workflow thing and I'd just avoid Arc if you don't like vertical tabs. 3) Who knows, Vivaldi and Brave manage to stick around. The Google integration money doesn't seem to be bad. They also don't need their engineering team to encompass developing the rendering engine, they can focus on the UI.

yborg 3y ago
>Firefox is actively declining with 6% desktop It's been dying for at least a decade, and I'll put up my entire NFT stash and bet you it will be here long after Arc has been forgotten. Remember RockMelt? Yeah, nobody else does, either.
- tapoxi 3y ago
  It's not going to become zero, just irrelevant for developers to test against.
- gisely 3y ago
  I bet my entire Beanie Baby stash that your NFT stash won't be worth anything by the time you're ready to judge this bet.
shafyy 3y ago
> I get not wanting to support Google itself, but Chromium has become the de-facto standard at this point, and Firefox is actively declining with 6% desktop and 3% overall share. That's exactly the reason why I want to support alternative engines like Firefox's.

treyd 3y ago

> They're heavily VC-backed, and while they say that they want to monetize via paid team features This alone is a huge reason not to use it. After the OS/kernel, the browser is probably the most important and security-sentitive program on your computer. Being not free software should be an automatic nonstarter. I don't know why the W3C doesn't fund development of Servo or similar as a foss project given how absolutely essential maintaining a neutral browser (/engine) is for the health of the web.

Ncarpentieri4 3y ago

I also think the quirks/cheeky stuff is a little too much. But I will say I have no desire to go back to any other browser. The side bar, pinning, spaces, favorites have revolutionized the way I use the internet. I think this is the most well thought out product I've seen in years, I would be very sad to not see them survive.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

dmazzoni 3y ago

I'm not sure I understand concerns about not wanting to support anything based on Chromium. Chromium is 100% open-source, and there are Chromium committers from Microsoft, Opera, Samsung, Igalia, Electron, and dozens of other companies, plus some who are affiliated. I understand not wanting to use Google Chrome, but why throw out the whole open-source browser engine? If the argument is that you don't want Google to benefit, then are you going to similarly boycott any other open-source technology that Google created or uses? Are you going to boycott the Linux kernel because Google heavily uses it? Are you going to boycott Kubernetes, Flutter, and Go as well? Are you going to boycott every Electron app too?

theshrike79 3y ago
Some of us lived through the IE monoculture days. It's not good for the web if one organisation can dictate what works and what doesn't. If it wasn't for Safari's popularity, Chromium based browsers would consist about 90-95% of all browser traffic.
asadotzler 3y ago
Gonna guess you weren't online in the early 2000s when we fought like hell to disrupt Microsoft Trident's 95% browser monopoly that it was using to stall the web so .Net and other MS Windows platforms could hopefully catch up and not be disrupted. We're there again with Chromium, another Trident.
shafyy 3y ago
True, Chromium is open source. But as others have stated: Google is the main driver and benfactor of Chromium, and we need more diversity in the browser engine game. The examples you mentioned don't suffer from the same quasi-monopoly structure in the market.