Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

A look at Firefox forks

lwn.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 390 posts

Re: A look at Firefox forks

#91

Post by keerthiko »

eikenberry wrote: post #81
osener wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Zen browser is exactly this. It has a growing ecosystem of “Zen mods” and has a great Arc-like out-of-box experience. https://zen-browser.app/

Does Zen plan on taking payments at some point? Key part of the idea is paid development.

they have a ko-fi and a patreon, with about a 1000 "subscribers" across both at amounts at the moment. it's not exactly enough to promise indefinite support, but tbh i don't really much reason to have that faith from products i've paid for but are closed-source either.

Re: A look at Firefox forks

#92

Post by Apocryphon »

pessimizer wrote: post #60
andix wrote: post #52

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They gave up their own engine because it wasn’t good enough. If Google turns into a direction Microsoft doesn’t like, they can develop their own engine based on the best one currently available. As long as Google’s direction ist satisfactory to Microsoft, they can just save a lot of money by just using it.

> They gave up their own engine because it wasn’t good enough. It wasn't good enough because they had neglected it, not because they didn't have the talent or cash to make it good enough. They didn't want to. The bugs had been a moat to keep Firefox out of the enterprise, and it had worked. That was not going to work against Google, who had a good business reason to own the browser, unlike Microsoft at that point. IE…

> Apple is going to buy Ladybird, and on some level they're already working together.

Even without (conspiratorial) intent this seems to be happening unintentionally- Andreas is ex-Apple, after all, and that's why he switched development away from his own language to Swift. I wonder if it's analogous to Xamarin and Miguel de Icaza inevitably eventually ending up at Microsoft.

That said,

> Apple will end up on both Windows and Linux, and not in the horrible form of iTunes, but as the objectively best choice for a gateway to the internet. And written in Swift.

Sounds like too good a no-brainer to actually happen, at least under current leadership. Few of these "dream mergers" ever actually happen. Another example, Apple buying DuckDuckGo as a counter against the Google search monopoly, has never come close to happening after years of speculation.

Re: A look at Firefox forks

#93

Post by pjerem »

mmooss wrote: post #87
waltbosz wrote: post #29

This recent Mozilla stuff has got me wondering if one could fork Firefox, strip out the AI/adware code, then sell the binaries. How much would people pay (who would pay for a web browser)? Just Firefox, minus the crap. Would it generate enough revenue to cover the maintenance costs? Etc, etc.

If you take enough users from Firefox, who will do the expensive, hard work of updating and maintaining a browser engine?

If you take so much users from Firefox but they are paid users then you basically have the money to do the expensive hard work.

Re: A look at Firefox forks

#95

Post by TylerE »

0x457 wrote: post #83
cosmic_cheese wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don’t know that this idea would work for literally just Firefox, but I strongly believe that people would be willing to pay for a Firefox fork that has a laser focus on fit and finish and poweruser features. Think a “Firefox Pro” of sorts. Why do I think this? Three reasons: - It elevates the browser into a higher category of tool, where currently Firefox inhabits the same space as OS-bundled calculators and text e…

I think in todays world, when everything is a subscription, payment for a browser doesn't look so far-fetched.

Getting people to pay for something that has always been free is a tall ask. Most people are barely aware of what a browser is. They just think it’s part of the OS.

Re: A look at Firefox forks

#96

Post by gausswho »

slindsey wrote: post #50

For years I've thought of creating a "paid" Firefox fork that is _just_ Firefox rebranded, but otherwise the exact codebase. The money brought in would be used to pay an open source developer to work strictly on things intended to be sent upstream to the Mozilla Firefox. If nothing else, it would prove whether or not people are willing to pay for Firefox. The problem with Firefox currently is the organizational struc…

Please someone make a Firefox that makes profile portability readable and with sensible defaults.

Re: A look at Firefox forks

#97

Post by bmacho »

TylerE wrote: post #95
0x457 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think in todays world, when everything is a subscription, payment for a browser doesn't look so far-fetched.

Getting people to pay for something that has always been free is a tall ask. Most people are barely aware of what a browser is. They just think it’s part of the OS.

People pay for youtube and random youtubers now. They are fine paying for things.

Re: A look at Firefox forks

#98

Post by bmacho »

Y_Y wrote: post #65
lxn wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I can confirm that. I switched to using LibreWolf as a work-dedicated browser parallel to Firefox Developer Edition. In two weeks of using it, I got annoyed by the following: - no automatic dark-mode (against fingerprinting, some websites don't have a setting to switch it on - not sure if you can turn it off) - timezone is always UTC (can be worked-around with an extension, messed up my time tracking app and some log…

I used to have terrible time with forgetting my keys, or letting the cleaner in when I wasn't home. Then I just stopped locking the door and never looked back. It's so convenient and saves me precious time. What can I say, it just works!

Unironically tho when were the last time you see people trying random doors if they are unlocked. There is absolutely no need to lock your door if you are not vocal about it.

Re: A look at Firefox forks

#99

Post by lolinder »

TylerE wrote: post #95
0x457 wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think in todays world, when everything is a subscription, payment for a browser doesn't look so far-fetched.

Getting people to pay for something that has always been free is a tall ask. Most people are barely aware of what a browser is. They just think it’s part of the OS.

Enough people pay for Nebula and Kagi and Fastmail to make them profitable, even though YouTube and Google and Gmail are free. You don't need to get everyone in the world who uses the free service to be willing to pay, just enough of them to fund your project.

There's actually an advantage to the paid business model vs ads in that you don't have to appeal to N million people in order to pay the bills: you only have to appeal to `expenses / subscriptionPrice` people. This means you can cater to those people more aggressively and turn them into fans rather than just users, while also saving time on the features they don't need (reducing `expenses`).

(I'm a happy subscriber to all three above-mentioned services and would immediately sign on for a paid Firefox fork like OP suggests.)

Re: A look at Firefox forks

#100

Post by [deleted] »

bmacho wrote: post #97
TylerE wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Getting people to pay for something that has always been free is a tall ask. Most people are barely aware of what a browser is. They just think it’s part of the OS.

People pay for youtube and random youtubers now. They are fine paying for things.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN