5 ms·

Firefox is the best. Company behind Brave is yet another ad company, which business model eventually conflicts with the interests of the users. Orion browser i

by nicce 3y ago

Firefox is the best. Company behind Brave is yet another ad company, which business model eventually conflicts with the interests of the users. Orion browser is still too young to match the requirements of the major userbase. But Kagi beats Google already as search engine.

heresie-dabord 3y ago
Firefox and derivatives such as Librewolf.[1] [1] _ https://librewolf.net/ https://librewolf.net/
- pleb_nz 3y ago
  Does librewolf have a mobile version or can I sync Firefox stuff to libre so I can sync between Firefox and libre where needs require one or the other is installed?
freediver 3y ago
> Orion browser is still too young to match the requirements of the major userbase. But Kagi beats Google already as search engine. Orion is older than Kagi search. What is it missing in your opinion?
- nicce 3y ago
  Cross-platform support is must. It is only possible to use it currently if you are deep into Apple ecosystem. I know it takes resources, but there is no other way. To add: Browser itself is in quite good shape, maybe the best you get on iOS. But for example, sync with iCloud only does not work in the long term. Vendor lock-in is hindering adaption.
  - freediver 3y ago
    I'd say that does not make a browser young, otherwise you would have to call Safari young too. The goal of Orion is not to go for maximum possible market share, but to be the best browser for Mac. This specialization may be seen as a sign of maturity and devotion to a well-built, native user experience. On the other hand, browsers like Chrome and Firefox are not native on Mac and look out of place when used on macOS. They do not use native controls and do not integrate native services. This is exactly because they are cross-platform and have to carry the burden of being built by a committee on all these platforms. Their design language traces back to the first platform they were designed for - Windows. So at least to me, they look 'young' and unpolished on a Mac despite being 20 years old. I doubt they even look and feel native on Windows any more, they are kind of hopelessly lost in translation. If that is a sign of maturity, then they did not age well. Orion may be called young for many things, but not being cross-platform is not one of them. We'd like to build similar native experiences for other platforms, but you have to start somewhere. (Orion dev here, if it was not obvious)
    - nicce 3y ago
      Even if the browser would be the best browser on the Mac from UX side, people might not use it because they can’t use it elsewhere. For example, every devoloper who currently buys Mac because of its power efficiency, that user base which is the most interested about privacy, is likely not adapting it because they use other operating systems too. > Their design language traces back to the first platform they were designed for - Windows. So at least to me, they look 'young' and unpolished on a Mac despite being 20 years old. I doubt they look and feel native on Windows any more, they are kind of lost in translation. That is not a sign of maturity if you ask me. That might be true, but in the end, does it matter? And what is good? If user buys Mac, does it mean that they wants everything to be Mac-like? There is already Safari. Ideally, browser is used for browsing the internet. You want to see the websites, not the browser. Users still likely use mouse and scroll wheel for doing that. The basic end-user is usually satisfied with search bar and being able to organize tabs and bookmarks. Basic end-user does not notice that <5% performance gain what focusing on single platform target might benefit. If you compete with Safari on this, Safari already won becausd it was pre-installed. The more advanced user, more settings buttons they want to see, and better extension support. They want to configure things and see the websites. Whether the browser looks ”native” to the platform, is minor concern. They want security updates fast. They want that websites work on that browser. They like privacy features, like Firefox containers. Is it gestures why they would change the browser? Only if it also fulfills all the above.
      - freediver 3y ago
        It is not clear which of these feature users do not have with Orion? In some respects Orion has more features than Firefox and Chrome, and certainly more than Safari. It is also zero telemetry and comes with a built in ads and tracking blocker, something all these browsers are very far away from. And Orion was faster than Safari to ship a patch for iLeakage WebKit vulnerability recently. So I would really like to understand what makes your perception as such.
rsanek 3y ago
Monetarily, only Kagi is different. Brave, Chrome, and Firefox are all dependent on ads to keep running, whether directly or indirectly.

by nicce 3y ago

heresie-dabord 3y ago

Firefox and derivatives such as Librewolf.[1] [1] _ https://librewolf.net/ https://librewolf.net/

pleb_nz 3y ago
Does librewolf have a mobile version or can I sync Firefox stuff to libre so I can sync between Firefox and libre where needs require one or the other is installed?

freediver 3y ago

> Orion browser is still too young to match the requirements of the major userbase. But Kagi beats Google already as search engine. Orion is older than Kagi search. What is it missing in your opinion?

nicce 3y ago
Cross-platform support is must. It is only possible to use it currently if you are deep into Apple ecosystem. I know it takes resources, but there is no other way. To add: Browser itself is in quite good shape, maybe the best you get on iOS. But for example, sync with iCloud only does not work in the long term. Vendor lock-in is hindering adaption.
- freediver 3y ago
  I'd say that does not make a browser young, otherwise you would have to call Safari young too. The goal of Orion is not to go for maximum possible market share, but to be the best browser for Mac. This specialization may be seen as a sign of maturity and devotion to a well-built, native user experience. On the other hand, browsers like Chrome and Firefox are not native on Mac and look out of place when used on macOS. They do not use native controls and do not integrate native services. This is exactly because they are cross-platform and have to carry the burden of being built by a committee on all these platforms. Their design language traces back to the first platform they were designed for - Windows. So at least to me, they look 'young' and unpolished on a Mac despite being 20 years old. I doubt they even look and feel native on Windows any more, they are kind of hopelessly lost in translation. If that is a sign of maturity, then they did not age well. Orion may be called young for many things, but not being cross-platform is not one of them. We'd like to build similar native experiences for other platforms, but you have to start somewhere. (Orion dev here, if it was not obvious)
  - nicce 3y ago
    Even if the browser would be the best browser on the Mac from UX side, people might not use it because they can’t use it elsewhere. For example, every devoloper who currently buys Mac because of its power efficiency, that user base which is the most interested about privacy, is likely not adapting it because they use other operating systems too. > Their design language traces back to the first platform they were designed for - Windows. So at least to me, they look 'young' and unpolished on a Mac despite being 20 years old. I doubt they look and feel native on Windows any more, they are kind of lost in translation. That is not a sign of maturity if you ask me. That might be true, but in the end, does it matter? And what is good? If user buys Mac, does it mean that they wants everything to be Mac-like? There is already Safari. Ideally, browser is used for browsing the internet. You want to see the websites, not the browser. Users still likely use mouse and scroll wheel for doing that. The basic end-user is usually satisfied with search bar and being able to organize tabs and bookmarks. Basic end-user does not notice that <5% performance gain what focusing on single platform target might benefit. If you compete with Safari on this, Safari already won becausd it was pre-installed. The more advanced user, more settings buttons they want to see, and better extension support. They want to configure things and see the websites. Whether the browser looks ”native” to the platform, is minor concern. They want security updates fast. They want that websites work on that browser. They like privacy features, like Firefox containers. Is it gestures why they would change the browser? Only if it also fulfills all the above.
    - freediver 3y ago
      It is not clear which of these feature users do not have with Orion? In some respects Orion has more features than Firefox and Chrome, and certainly more than Safari. It is also zero telemetry and comes with a built in ads and tracking blocker, something all these browsers are very far away from. And Orion was faster than Safari to ship a patch for iLeakage WebKit vulnerability recently. So I would really like to understand what makes your perception as such.

rsanek 3y ago

Monetarily, only Kagi is different. Brave, Chrome, and Firefox are all dependent on ads to keep running, whether directly or indirectly.