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

Show HN: Javelin Browser

javelinbrowser.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–138 of 138 posts

Re: Show HN: Javelin Browser

#131

Post by teddyh »

hackoder wrote: post #61
nubela wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm also the developer of http://getgom.com (VPN as a Chrome extension using SPDY SSL proxies), and as a fellow Singaporean when our government openly does surveilance, I __completely__ understand where you are coming from. To be fair, I'm not sure how I can solve his problem though. Open sourcing could be a plausible answer. But fighting Google Play clones and what-not is really time-consuming and as an indie dev, m…

What's stopping clones from replicating your UI right now? Are you concerned with loss of IAP revenue to clones? I would suggest you open source it under a non-commercial license. Also, take a look at how some successful android open source projects are run. In particular, I like XPrivacy ( https://github.com/M66B/XPrivacy ). This is an excellent app. Open source with optional purchase, similar to yours. Personally,…

> […] open source it under a non-commercial license […]

A non-commercial license is not, in any sane definition of the term, an “open source” license¹.

① http://opensource.org/osd#fields-of-endeavor

Re: Show HN: Javelin Browser

#132

Post by pit »

blntechie wrote: post #13

I used it for about 3-4 months when 'Stack' was introduced but went back to Link Bubble + Chrome. I couldn't exactly remember why I went back to LB + Chrome but mostly due to 'Stack' being too rigid to my liking compared to Link Bubble (back button not closing the stack, no easy jumping between stacks, scrolling and stack animations kind of wonky etc.) All things said, I loved the browser experience. Especially easy…

Yeah, Stack is really interesting.

Re: Show HN: Javelin Browser

#134

Post by icambron »

juliangoldsmith wrote: post #45
icambron wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I obviously haven't thought about this as long as you have, but offhand I think that model is a mistake. Only a small subset of people (and perhaps a bunch of companies) want things like proxy support or VPNs or other extra services. Most people just want to browse the web, so you're limiting your market a lot. (I do think you could make value-added browser services a business, but you'd have to go to enterprises to…

That assumes that his main goal is to make a profit, rather than just put out a good product which generates a little bit of passive income.

I don't see why. Passive income vs profit is not really dichotomy; passive income is a question of how much work you put in, whereas profit is how much you make relative to how much you put in. Regardless of how you structure your commitments, more profit is better than less profit.

You could argue that to be successful at generating a passive income of any magnitude, you'd be better off selling value-added services on top of a free browser rather than just selling a browser. I'd be curious to hear that argument, because the opposite seems true: making freemium work means that you need to invest not just in making a great free product that people will use, but also invest in creating enough additional value to make the sale. Thus I think wanting a lower commitment to the company actually says you should just sell the browser.

Re: Show HN: Javelin Browser

#136

Post by niklasni1 »

eli wrote: post #41
niklasni1 wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Personally, I don't have Google Apps on my phone at all. If it's not in F-Droid or available as an apk from the developer, it doesn't get installed.

That seems limiting. Is it because you don't trust Google?

Yeah.

It should be noted that I'm glued to my laptop most of the time, so I mostly think of my phone as a computer with a small screen and crappy input method.

Re: Show HN: Javelin Browser

#138

Post by xyproto »

seabee wrote: post #122
tomp wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People trust Mozilla because someone could read the code (and probably, many people do).

People trust Apple and nobody else can read their code. This suggests open source is not necessary to build trust.

No, people choose comfort and projecting an image of status over privacy. It's not because they trust Apple.
Post reply on HN