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

Helium Browser

helium.computer

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 561 posts

Re: Helium Browser

#151

Post by godelski »

vasco wrote: post #132
godelski wrote: post #124

> Helium is based on Chromium > Best privacy by default Sorry, pass... Even with un-googled Chromium I do not think these statements are self-consistent. We need browsers that do not allow Google to control the ecosystem. We need legitimate competition. So what, our choices are Firefox (Gecko), Safari (WebKit), and Ladybird? Personally I go with Firefox on most devices and Orion (WebKit) on my iPhone and iPad. > Heli…

How is firefox legitimate competition when they are basically financed by Google?

Allow me to rephrase my earlier choice

  Chromium: Entirely dependent on Google, a $3T company who's entire business model relies upon invading your privacy and currently has a >70% global share of browsers
  WebKit: A closed source browser with ~18% of browser share and run by a nearly $4T company who forces all browsers on their mobile devices to be reskinned versions of their browser and probably wants to do the same on their other devices
  Gecko: An open source browser with ~4% of the browser share, run by a non-profit with a mission of to preserve privacy but is struggling to find funding.
All three choices suck. I don't think anyone is disagreeing with that. But there's only one option on here that isn't trying to royally fuck everyone over and actually cares about the very service we're arguing over.

So what... we're going to let the internet get screwed because a bunch of dudes making hundreds of thousands of dollars a year can't toss some beer money over to the little guy?

You paint this as a hopeless picture, but seriously, have you considered donating? Every time I see these types of threads I see comments like

  > I would happily pay a small monthly subscription fee for a browser if it has strong legally protected privacy guarantees.[0]
Seriously, are we all that greedy and myopic? They're a non-profit. You know tons of companies, such as Google and every other big tech company, have some donation matching system. Google pays the Mozilla Foundation about half a billion a year to make Google the default search engine. How is the fact that they are throwing such massive amounts of money not a concerning thing? Yet FF has enough users that we could give them an extra 40% revenue if we tossed them $5 PER YEAR. That's it.

Do you really think your browser provides to you less value than your Netflix (160%/360%/500% more expensive) or Spotify (240% more expensive) account? Seriously? If literally 30% of FF users gave to Mozilla what they are willing to give to Spotify, then the problem is solved. Or 15% of users did it through their company's matching program. If instead of discouraging people, you got more people to convert then the percentage of necessary contributors decreases!

It's even tax fucking deductible so it isn't even that [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45369141

Re: Helium Browser

#152

Post by pjmlp »

baruz wrote: post #143
scbzzzzz wrote: post #133

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You need to look at history. In early 90s why did Microsoft invest in apple when it is its competitors. Investment doesn't mean they are medling into mozilla business. For companies like google (present) or Microsoft in 90's. It is better to have a crippled competitor than no competitor. No competitor attracts government agencies for monopoly which is worse.

In the 1990s Microsoft “invested” in Apple because Steve Jobs allowed them to save face by giving them the option to settle their part of Apple v San Francisco Canyon Co by calling part of it—$150 M—a stock purchase that only lasted a few years. I do not know how much the total cash settlement from Microsoft was, but industry rumors went up to $1B.

The first time yes, the last time, there would be no Apple Silicon to talk about today.

Re: Helium Browser

#154

Post by godelski »

fumar wrote: post #141
tclover wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Mozilla is fine taking money from Google, because it keeps "competition" alive otherwise Google would face antitrust lawsuits for running a monopoly.

Isn’t Safari 30% of browser share in the US?

What's your point? Even 3 players is too few.

Re: Helium Browser

#155

Post by pjmlp »

rkomorn wrote: post #138
vasco wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is firefox legitimate competition when they are basically financed by Google?

Maybe it's also the other way around: if Firefox was legitimate competition, Google wouldn't "fund" them (quotes because really, google is also just buying user traffic with their investment). Is Google actively sabotaging Mozilla or is Mozilla a genuine competitor that just hasn't figured out how to build a browser that'll actually challenge Chrome (and Chromiumy browsers) beyond ideologist users? I say it's the lat…

Unfortunely most people have decided it isn't worthwhile to buy software, including those whose job depends on selling software.

Re: Helium Browser

#156

Post by NetOpWibby »

Yeesh, tough crowd in these comments. And yet everyone's excited for new Gmail skins. Anyway.

I hope more people take ungoogled-chromium and create new interfaces. It's a shame that Servo's in an unusable state, I'd love to see more tooling around that.

I just want someone to give me Opera 12...I suppose that's Vivaldi though.

Re: Helium Browser

#157

Post by rkomorn »

theK wrote: post #146
rkomorn wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe it's also the other way around: if Firefox was legitimate competition, Google wouldn't "fund" them (quotes because really, google is also just buying user traffic with their investment). Is Google actively sabotaging Mozilla or is Mozilla a genuine competitor that just hasn't figured out how to build a browser that'll actually challenge Chrome (and Chromiumy browsers) beyond ideologist users? I say it's the lat…

I dont see how the competitiveness argument can still stand. I've been using both browsers for the better part of two decades now and chrome/chromium never was the better product. Sure it had slightly better devtools for a while but nowadays it is very difficult to argue either way. Performance was rubbish on both ends for years in a row, right now both seem to do fine. Firefox has sync, a significantly better produc…

As someone who almost compulsively changes browsers every so often with the mistaken belief that "there's gotta be something better" and has swung by Firefox on multiple occasions, it has never offered me any compelling reason to stick with it beyond not being Chrome.

Zen came close, but also didn't stick.

Containers seemed nice at first but my personal usage of them devolved into an over abundance of containers to isolate everything from one another (my fault, though).

On the other hand, I've had various small nits here and there that always eventually push me back towards a chromium browser.

But hey, I'm a believer in not holding on to my decisions so long that they become assumptions, so off I go to install Firefox and give it a 4th whirl since 2010.

Re: Helium Browser

#158

Post by WalterBright »

It's about time programmers stopped naming products and languages after elements and chemicals. Haven't we had enough of that?

We should name languages only after letters. After all, 26 languages should be enough for anybody.

Re: Helium Browser

#159

Post by john01dav »

godelski wrote: post #151
vasco wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is firefox legitimate competition when they are basically financed by Google?

Allow me to rephrase my earlier choice Chromium: Entirely dependent on Google, a $3T company who's entire business model relies upon invading your privacy and currently has a >70% global share of browsers WebKit: A closed source browser with ~18% of browser share and run by a nearly $4T company who forces all browsers on their mobile devices to be reskinned versions of their browser and probably wants to do the same…

You can't donate to Firefox. You can donate to Mozilla, but that money doesn't go to Firefox.

Re: Helium Browser

#160

Post by rkomorn »

pjmlp wrote: post #155
rkomorn wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe it's also the other way around: if Firefox was legitimate competition, Google wouldn't "fund" them (quotes because really, google is also just buying user traffic with their investment). Is Google actively sabotaging Mozilla or is Mozilla a genuine competitor that just hasn't figured out how to build a browser that'll actually challenge Chrome (and Chromiumy browsers) beyond ideologist users? I say it's the lat…

Unfortunely most people have decided it isn't worthwhile to buy software, including those whose job depends on selling software.

Are you saying that, because people don't want to buy browsers, the end result is we only get the ones that can be financed by companies that sell other things (which in this day and age is ads, with only a few exceptions)?

I'd agree. Although I'd also add: people don't want to sell software anymore, they want to sell subscriptions, and I personally do not have much desire to pay $10/month for a browser (and then get pitched more services to buy on top, no doubt).

Post reply on HN