21–30 of 126 posts
For further privacy, there's a pretty radical version of Firefox called Tor.
This is not the way. If we relegate privacy to fringe browsers like this, we'll lose in the long run. It's not possible to have 0.05% percent of the market, and try and compete with goliaths like Google. So it creates a feedback loop of a browser that people don't really use because it lacks features/popularity. Or/and these companies are also forced to do things like Brave and their in-browser ads. Meanwhile there'l…
Also, these niche browsers test out advanced features that can feed back upstream, and improve privacy for all users. (For instance, many of the Tor Browser features have been upstreamed and enabled by default in Firefox.)
The author was testing these browsers on an iPhone — but neglected to note that Apple actually prevents other browser engines on iOS. So if you use Firefox or Brave on an iPhone, you’re simply using Safari with a different “skin.” This skin can clearly do some content blocking, and it can provide a different browser UI — but it cannot change the fundamental web technologies that are available in the browser. As such,…
Oh and Bitwarden does not work in FF. It it does work in Safari! So now I, a Firefox by default person switched to Safari (on iOS at least). I wish full Firefox was present.
The author was testing these browsers on an iPhone — but neglected to note that Apple actually prevents other browser engines on iOS. So if you use Firefox or Brave on an iPhone, you’re simply using Safari with a different “skin.” This skin can clearly do some content blocking, and it can provide a different browser UI — but it cannot change the fundamental web technologies that are available in the browser. As such,…
I'm not sure that's relevant for privacy - for privacy, the specific thing you need is content blocking, right? I agree it's important for functionality and the general health of the web as a platform, but those don't seem to be the point of the article.
Yes, and for example (to my knowledge) there is no good granular script blocker (e.g. umatrix, ublock origin, noscript) in any browser available for iphone because there is no extension support in browsers like Chrome and Firefox.
The author was testing these browsers on an iPhone — but neglected to note that Apple actually prevents other browser engines on iOS. So if you use Firefox or Brave on an iPhone, you’re simply using Safari with a different “skin.” This skin can clearly do some content blocking, and it can provide a different browser UI — but it cannot change the fundamental web technologies that are available in the browser. As such,…
I'm not sure that's relevant for privacy - for privacy, the specific thing you need is content blocking, right? I agree it's important for functionality and the general health of the web as a platform, but those don't seem to be the point of the article.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which one is less polished, and are you implying Chrome is more so? Maybe it's "polished" but it's incredibly slow and FF/Brave both have better features from what I can see.
It’s not factually accurate to claim that chrome is “slow”, especially vis-a-vis Firefox.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can’t believe this was overlooked by a prestigious publication.
Doesn't surprise me at all. The reality is that journalists are just that, journalists. They rarely have any relevant expertise about what they write. Coupled with strict limits on content size enforced by publishers and an audience that often understands even less about the topics discussed you get major errors like these. The amount of text necessary to explain to the average NYT reader what a rendering engine is p…
This is not the way. If we relegate privacy to fringe browsers like this, we'll lose in the long run. It's not possible to have 0.05% percent of the market, and try and compete with goliaths like Google. So it creates a feedback loop of a browser that people don't really use because it lacks features/popularity. Or/and these companies are also forced to do things like Brave and their in-browser ads. Meanwhile there'l…
It's a Chromium browser with a focus on privacy.
The author was testing these browsers on an iPhone — but neglected to note that Apple actually prevents other browser engines on iOS. So if you use Firefox or Brave on an iPhone, you’re simply using Safari with a different “skin.” This skin can clearly do some content blocking, and it can provide a different browser UI — but it cannot change the fundamental web technologies that are available in the browser. As such,…
I strongly disagree with you. The new IE6 is Chrome: overwhelming dominance of the web to the extent that Google can dictate "standards" themselves and users begin to lose the ability to use other browsers because "site works best(only) in Chrome", and I think that having my data forcefully harvested and active opposition from the developer to ad-blocking is a LOT worse than "stagnation". I like Firefox a lot on the desktop, but I have no illusions it'd stand in the way of total Chrome domination on its own. The only thing that really throws a wrench in Google's plans is iOS.
>More people need to know about Apple’s neutering of browsers on iOS. It’s crippling the growth of the web.
Good. I don't want everything shoved into websites or web views thank you very much, the web eating the world is something I actively oppose. And I don't care if it makes your life (or my life, with a dev hat on) harder. I don't mind if you simply chose not to serve iOS/Mac/Firefox users at all, though of course most would then take their business elsewhere. And you offering worse quality is also perfectly within the market and I don't fault you for it either. I'd pick a competitor with a native app and high quality, but that's not free to develop, so how that all shakes out may vary. But while it has downsides, Apple serving as a concentrator for user buying power has upsides too so long as they stay as a small though significant part of the market, which is very likely given their business strategy.
>If more iOS users knew about this, perhaps they’d lobby Apple for better web support.
I'm wish the App Store supported upgrade pricing, and I would like laws requiring Apple to offer a purchase-time option for root signing key access, even if it's for money or reduces support or something. But I'm perfectly happy to see a bit of favor towards native experiences over the web and I hope they continue to push that.
The author was testing these browsers on an iPhone — but neglected to note that Apple actually prevents other browser engines on iOS. So if you use Firefox or Brave on an iPhone, you’re simply using Safari with a different “skin.” This skin can clearly do some content blocking, and it can provide a different browser UI — but it cannot change the fundamental web technologies that are available in the browser. As such,…
This tired trope must die. No, Safari is not "the new IE6".
The problem with IE6 was not that it lagged a few years before adopting some features, it was moving fast and implementing things on its own, forcing standards, etc, and forcing a monoculture due to his large adoption (until Firefox came).
The monoculture, moving too fast, dictating arbitrary standards, is what Google does with Chrome (and every Blink derived browser).