4 ms·

How much would you pay for an independent, non-ad supported, privacy-focused browser?

by vvvv 12y ago

ds9 12y ago
Any promises of privacy or security are worthless unless it's on an open licence (GPL equivalent) - and in that case how would payment be enforced? Apparently you are asking a "trick question".
hk__2 12y ago
You mean Firefox?
- icebraining 12y ago
  Firefox is technically/indirectly ad-supported. I don't think it's much of a problem - which is why I use it - but it is an incentive to not piss of Google too much, which can conflict with its mission.
furyg3 12y ago
Off the cuff? $40. Of course my willingness would vary depending on the project, community, features, stability, etc... but there's precedent. I've had no problem donating similar amounts to browser projects in the past, or smaller amounts (+/- $10) to privacy plugins (Adblock, Disconnect). As a mac user, it's Safari, Chrome, or Firefox. All three are to varying degrees beholden to advertising powers who want my data, and aren't going to challenge the status quo in a major way. That needs to change, and I'd be willing to support that.
- vvvv 12y ago
  Let's say $40 per annum, i.e. $3.33/month, to pay for a browser like we do for an OS. I'd be willing to pay for an essential piece of software that needs to be independent and look after me and my data. Simplifying, 39% of the world's 7.1bn population is using the internet [1]. That's 2.8bn people. Opera, the least popular major browser, has a 1.8% market share [2]. If the $40 browser could match that share, it'd be a $2bn p.a. business. Why hasn't it happened already? Are we so enamoured with "free" software that this couldn't get off the ground? [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Internet_usage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Internet_usage [2] http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp
  - blueblob 12y ago
    Probably because you are thinking of yourself and as a representative sample of the population that is interested in privacy. Hate to break it to you, but if you understand how you are tracked ata all, you are in the minority. HN is quite possible the least representative population of the global internet user population in terms of both amount of money that you have (and hence amount you'd be willing to spend) and most people on HN have a pretty good idea of what is being tracked whereas a member of the general population would not.
    - vvvv 12y ago
      Personally, I think there could be sufficient demand especially if you consider this: Microsoft has traditionally been in the business of developing and selling user-centric (as opposed to advertiser-centric) software. Why wouldn't they develop a user-centric browser and sell it like they do the Office products? I'm genuinely wondering. Would it be hated by developers as it'd limit their earning opportunities?
      - blueblob 12y ago
        I think that we are at the point in the game that people don't want to pay for a browser unless they can get something significantly better than what they get from a free browser. Keep in mind that in breaking into the market, you have to overtake the competitors with features that aren't available. This would likely be possible in the mobile market, but not the desktop market. Opera's market share has been both increasing and decreasing over the last few years[1] but it looks like it is taking market share from IE users and more people are switching to chrome. So I would predict Opera's share would go down in the future. The big questions for me, would then be: What am I getting from a browser that I pay for over a free one? Can I get the same features out of plugins for a more widely adopted (and hence better supported or developed for) browser? Microsoft is really business and student oriented with the majority of their products. A browser only matches part of their design goals. They want people to keep paying for their OS and don't want products to migrate to the web where they have to compete with Google (Though they already have to do this to some extent). Don't get me wrong, I would be personally interested in something like this but don't believe that many people outside of developers (and people doing criminal things whether moral or not) would be. Not sure what you mean with the last point/question. The market share would be decidedly small, it likely wouldn't be developed for (unless it used a major library like webkit) and most business people wouldn't notice much difference in their ad-based revenue from such a small market share. [1] http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp
hrjet 12y ago
Ahead of time, or after it is available?
belorn 12y ago
How much private information is someone willing to provide (knowingly) for an ad supported browser? Sexual orientation? Medical records? 24/7 location tracker? Banking status? Purchase records? All private correspondence? Check all, and you get a nice fast browser in the phone with integrated e-wallet, e-medical, e-dating, and email. When you ask how much someone is willing to pay for their privacy, we are comparing a product with uncertain hidden cost vs informed priced products. The result will always end up the same: you get lemons until the information asymmetry is solved.
Ihmahr 12y ago
Because of the good plugins that are becoming more available, probably just €10. And it would have to be open source (but not necessarily free, as in beer) otherwise it is bs.
teacup50 12y ago
I'd pay anywhere from $25-$60, depending on functionality.

How much would you pay for an independent, non-ad supported, privacy-focused browser?

by vvvv 12y ago

How much would you pay for an independent, non-ad supported, privacy-focused browser?

ds9 12y ago

Any promises of privacy or security are worthless unless it's on an open licence (GPL equivalent) - and in that case how would payment be enforced? Apparently you are asking a "trick question".

hk__2 12y ago

You mean Firefox?

icebraining 12y ago
Firefox is technically/indirectly ad-supported. I don't think it's much of a problem - which is why I use it - but it is an incentive to not piss of Google too much, which can conflict with its mission.

furyg3 12y ago

Off the cuff? $40. Of course my willingness would vary depending on the project, community, features, stability, etc... but there's precedent. I've had no problem donating similar amounts to browser projects in the past, or smaller amounts (+/- $10) to privacy plugins (Adblock, Disconnect). As a mac user, it's Safari, Chrome, or Firefox. All three are to varying degrees beholden to advertising powers who want my data, and aren't going to challenge the status quo in a major way. That needs to change, and I'd be willing to support that.

vvvv 12y ago
Let's say $40 per annum, i.e. $3.33/month, to pay for a browser like we do for an OS. I'd be willing to pay for an essential piece of software that needs to be independent and look after me and my data. Simplifying, 39% of the world's 7.1bn population is using the internet [1]. That's 2.8bn people. Opera, the least popular major browser, has a 1.8% market share [2]. If the $40 browser could match that share, it'd be a $2bn p.a. business. Why hasn't it happened already? Are we so enamoured with "free" software that this couldn't get off the ground? [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Internet_usage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_Internet_usage [2] http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp
- blueblob 12y ago
  Probably because you are thinking of yourself and as a representative sample of the population that is interested in privacy. Hate to break it to you, but if you understand how you are tracked ata all, you are in the minority. HN is quite possible the least representative population of the global internet user population in terms of both amount of money that you have (and hence amount you'd be willing to spend) and most people on HN have a pretty good idea of what is being tracked whereas a member of the general population would not.
  - vvvv 12y ago
    Personally, I think there could be sufficient demand especially if you consider this: Microsoft has traditionally been in the business of developing and selling user-centric (as opposed to advertiser-centric) software. Why wouldn't they develop a user-centric browser and sell it like they do the Office products? I'm genuinely wondering. Would it be hated by developers as it'd limit their earning opportunities?
    - blueblob 12y ago
      I think that we are at the point in the game that people don't want to pay for a browser unless they can get something significantly better than what they get from a free browser. Keep in mind that in breaking into the market, you have to overtake the competitors with features that aren't available. This would likely be possible in the mobile market, but not the desktop market. Opera's market share has been both increasing and decreasing over the last few years[1] but it looks like it is taking market share from IE users and more people are switching to chrome. So I would predict Opera's share would go down in the future. The big questions for me, would then be: What am I getting from a browser that I pay for over a free one? Can I get the same features out of plugins for a more widely adopted (and hence better supported or developed for) browser? Microsoft is really business and student oriented with the majority of their products. A browser only matches part of their design goals. They want people to keep paying for their OS and don't want products to migrate to the web where they have to compete with Google (Though they already have to do this to some extent). Don't get me wrong, I would be personally interested in something like this but don't believe that many people outside of developers (and people doing criminal things whether moral or not) would be. Not sure what you mean with the last point/question. The market share would be decidedly small, it likely wouldn't be developed for (unless it used a major library like webkit) and most business people wouldn't notice much difference in their ad-based revenue from such a small market share. [1] http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp

hrjet 12y ago

Ahead of time, or after it is available?

belorn 12y ago

How much private information is someone willing to provide (knowingly) for an ad supported browser? Sexual orientation? Medical records? 24/7 location tracker? Banking status? Purchase records? All private correspondence? Check all, and you get a nice fast browser in the phone with integrated e-wallet, e-medical, e-dating, and email. When you ask how much someone is willing to pay for their privacy, we are comparing a product with uncertain hidden cost vs informed priced products. The result will always end up the same: you get lemons until the information asymmetry is solved.

Ihmahr 12y ago

Because of the good plugins that are becoming more available, probably just €10. And it would have to be open source (but not necessarily free, as in beer) otherwise it is bs.

teacup50 12y ago

I'd pay anywhere from $25-$60, depending on functionality.