Thoughts on Bold browser? - formerly Braver

[Bttzed03]

Update: Braver is now Bold browser. Read explanations here

For those who haven't heard of it yet, it's a fork of the Brave browser.
If you are wondering why there's a sudden fork, read New stupid/greedy move from Brave Browser

Braver Bold devs plan to keep the privacy features of Brave (built-in ad blocker, Tor, WebTorrent) and removing revenue generating features such as adware, token (BAT), sponsored images, Binance ad, and referral links.

I'm also curious how this would work. Brave CEO already said that the fork won't work without the revenue streams.

Clunk UX sounds like bugs to fix. Please file. But they want to drop several major revenue legs. That leaves nothing but donations for funding. Won't work.

He also revealed that Firefox was able to survive because of the deals it had with Google:

I'm a founder of http://mozilla.org, pulled Mozilla out of AOL, incubated & launched Firefox, had first contact from Google for the 2004 search deal that made Firefox viable via an affiliate code in default UX. Not replicable, forks don't inherit. Open source was not enough.

I was there, I'm telling you straight — ask around. Being a non-profit was not the basis for our survival & growth, the Google search deal was. By mid-2004, we'd used most of the AOL seed funding, only IBM + a few bigs paid for TAB membership. We were going down without Google.

I'm still using brave with disabled ads/refs as Firefox crashes on my device from time to time. I'm personally looking forward to using Braver but it seems like developers will have a tough time here unless they get enough funding. Any developers here who might have an idea how much it would cost to run this?


For those interested to follow the developments on Braver Bold browser, check links below:

https://twitter.com/BraverBrowser https://twitter.com/BoldBrowser
https://discord.com/invite/XMAyYA4
https://github.com/braver-browser https://github.com/BoldBrowser

[mk4]

Well, it looks like a decent attempt to take out Brave's recent BS due to the recent fiasco. Will definitely watch it, but for now I'll stick back to Firefox(with the right plugins) as I'm expecting this one to be a bit more clunky due to probably lack of development.

[xxjumperxx]

I was using the brave Browser for a while until all the negative news about it came out.
This looks like a nice attempt to clean the browser out a bit and make it useable again, but I will just have an eye out on it for now and see how things develop over time.
Myself I switched to Firefox, as Chrome was not an alternative for me.
Lets see how things develop.

[TryNinja]

I also heard about them after the whole ref links fiasco, which made me stop using Brave.

Here is what they plan to change from the original Brave browser: https://github.com/braver-browser/braver-core/projects/1

[o_e_l_e_o]

So we take Chromium, strip out some (but certainly not all) of the privacy invasion, tracking, and data harvesting, create Brave browser, replace the all the privacy invasion we've stripped out with some of Brave's own privacy invasion, ads, KYC, etc., then take that, strip out some (but again probably not all) of Brave's privacy invasion, and call it Braver browser.

Or..... you could use Firefox which doesn't have all this nonsense to begin with. Seems a pretty simple choice to me. If you desperately need a privacy respecting Chromium fork, then use Ungoogled Chromium.

Brave CEO already said that the fork won't work without the revenue streams.

Of course he said that. The ubiquitousness of free and open source software proves that he is wrong. I used Electrum about 10 minutes ago. What revenue streams does it have? Also, surely the fact that he has just admitted that Brave is completely dependent on funding from companies like Binance is a huge red flag? Anything Binance want - more imbedded code, unique tracking, user data - they can strong arm Brave in to implementing with he tthreat of removing their funding if they don't comply.

[tomahawk9]

Good for the team behind this fork, but browser forks tend to go unnoticed by the majority of ppl and end up being these obscure web browsers that almost no one uses. Examples of this are Waterfox, Pale Moon, Basilisk...these are Firefox forks so maybe things will be different with Braver?

Still, either they implement cool features (even cooler if they're privacy features that actually work) or they risk joining the long list of obscure and forgotten "privacy focused" web browsers like IceCat, Iridium, Comodo Dragon, etc...

[TryNinja]

So we take Chromium, strip out some (but certainly not all) of the privacy invasion, tracking, and data harvesting, create Brave browser, replace the all the privacy invasion we've stripped out with some of Brave's own privacy invasion, ads, KYC, etc., then take that, strip out some (but again probably not all) of Brave's privacy invasion, and call it Braver browser.

Or..... you could use Firefox which doesn't have all this nonsense to begin with. Seems a pretty simple choice to me. If you desperately need a privacy respecting Chromium fork, then use Ungoogled Chromium.

They aren't just reversing every single change that Brave made in Chromium's base browser that made what Brave is today. They are removing all the unnecessary crap that they implemented to make money or push their own custodian services forward. It's all in the TODO list I linked above (Uphold with their KYC, Ref links, BAT features and their ads, the New Tabs adware, etc...).

I'm not sure what else Brave has besides this, but an example is keeping the Metamask integration and making it "the default web3 wallet". Could we just download Metamask extension in Firefox or Chromium? Of course, but that's another discussion. We could basically make any of these browsers "Brave" with extensions, but they decided to create their own browser for all of this.

[o_e_l_e_o]

They are removing all the unnecessary crap that they implemented to make money or push their own custodian services forward.

But that's kind of my point. Why take a browser filled with unnecessary crap (Chromium), try to strip that away but obviously not be able to get it all, add in a bunch of different unnecessary crap (Brave), try to strip that away but obviously not be able to get it all, and use what is left (Braver) because it has a handful of good features, when you can get all the same good features (and more) on Firefox without all the unnecessary crap even existing in the first place? All Chromium based browsers still phone home to Google in some way. Even with the best efforts of the Braver team, there is undoubtedly going to be some left over code and remnants of various bloatware and other privacy invading nonsense from both Google and Brave in there somewhere.

As you say, why not just use a clean base (Firefox) and install Metamask? Why use a browser with a ton of unnecessary crap in it just because it comes with Metamask pre-installed?

[stompix]

So we take Chromium, strip out some (but certainly not all) of the privacy invasion, tracking, and data harvesting, create Brave browser, replace the all the privacy invasion we've stripped out with some of Brave's own privacy invasion, ads, KYC, etc., then take that, strip out some (but again probably not all) of Brave's privacy invasion, and call it Braver browser.

This!
It's almost like trying to clean up windows!

Yeah, it's the same noble thing we've seen with some crap coins,a community takeover, we're trying to give back the community what was once a cool browser, look we're doing something, bla bla bla, that community is dead, unfortunately. The ones that needed a real browser without crap switched to something else a long time ago, the ones that remained with brave did so for the tokens, the rest of 0.1% is something negligible that might not like the new layout and they are also out.

That thing is dead from the start and so it is Brave with all their tokens and whatever plans they had for it for the future.
It's not the first project that wanted to be cool and fair to its users that has tuned the opposite, it's not the first revival of such a project and it won't be the last.
One thing is certain, I won't touch any of them, Brave, Braver, Bravos, Bravier, Bravirium, and what other forks will surely come out of this.
 

[o_e_l_e_o]

It's almost like trying to clean up windows!

Yeah, that's a great analogy.

You can sit for hours and hours with a clean install of Windows 10, changing settings, changing app permissions, uninstalling features, disabling Cortana, disabling telemetry, disabling services, deleting files, blocking connections to certain IPs, fiddling with the registry, installing third party privacy software, and still end up with a product that just can't stop sending all your data to Microsoft. Or, you could install Linux.

It's not the first project that wanted to be cool and fair to its users that has tuned the opposite

Yup. As soon as there is profit to made, their ideals and the interests of their users go out the window. It's the exact same behavior as we see from various crypto exchanges or services. Protect the privacy and security of our users' information, or sell them out so we can make maximum profit? It's always option number two.

[Bttzed03]

~
Of course he said that. The ubiquitousness of free and open source software proves that he is wrong. I used Electrum about 10 minutes ago. What revenue streams does it have? Also, surely the fact that he has just admitted that Brave is completely dependent on funding from companies like Binance is a huge red flag? Anything Binance want - more imbedded code, unique tracking, user data - they can strong arm Brave in to implementing with he tthreat of removing their funding if they don't comply.

Not sure if Electrum is the right comparison. I brought up Firefox browser because it is also an open source project and I thought it was self-funded (and with help from donors) all this time. I wonder what would happen to them if Google backs out of the deal (or threaten to)? What I'm trying to say is he could be right that no browser will survive for a very long time if it doesn't have any type of revenue stream unless there are always kind souls who would keep on donating to cover up the cost/s.

~ as I'm expecting this one to be a bit more clunky due to probably lack of development.

Work just started and yeah, everyone doesn't expect it to be smooth right away.

I wanted to try this browser after another user mentioned it on another thread. Unfortunately, they don't provide installer since they're still in migration process and i don't want compile it from source code.

Same here.

Good for the team behind this fork, but browser forks tend to go unnoticed by the majority of ppl and end up being these obscure web browsers that almost no one uses. Examples of this are Waterfox, Pale Moon, Basilisk...these are Firefox forks so maybe things will be different with Braver?

Still, either they implement cool features (even cooler if they're privacy features that actually work) or they risk joining the long list of obscure and forgotten "privacy focused" web browsers like IceCat, Iridium, Comodo Dragon, etc...

Well, it depends on the user's experience I guess. Braver came out because of Brave's actions. I don't know if I am correct on this one but I think it's the same case with Firefox and Brave. They became popular because Google f*cked its user's privacy. Of course Brave is not as popular as Chrome but you get the point...right? 


I just read that Braver will continue to rely on Brave's development and updates. They'll just keep on merging future updates after stripping adwares. That would mean less cost for them. I guess that could work.

[Saisher]

Will there be a confusion because I mean Brave and Braver Browser, if they want a fork they should go for a different name, not something that is very much associated to Brave Browser, they can hold a contest on what name they can give to this fork, but this something to watch out, fork is a hot item everything something bad or controversial happens to the original project.

[khaled0111]

I'm also curious how this would work. Brave CEO already said that the fork won't work without the revenue streams.

Clunk UX sounds like bugs to fix. Please file. But they want to drop several major revenue legs. That leaves nothing but donations for funding. Won't work.

It seems like Brave CEO either has no idea how much a useful project can collect from donations or is saying that as an attempt to thwart it since it represents a serious  competitor or simply trying to find excuses to justify what they did after they got exposed.
Just take WikiPedia as an example. It has been running for years and they mainly rely on donations (no ads, no partnerships, no official sponsors...)

[RapTarX]

Will there be a confusion because I mean Brave and Braver Browser, if they want a fork they should go for a different name, not something that is very much associated to Brave Browser,

The name is same because they are a fork of Brave browser; like bitcoin forks are more or less have bitcoin in their name. Otherwise, people will have hard time finding out the source of the browser and so does the purpose.

[pooya87]

i have a feeling that a very large percentage (like maybe 90%) of those who have ever used Brave browser have been using it because of its (micro) earning potential not its promise of privacy. that is why things like KYC, lack of privacy in design and a lot of other crap they pulled didn't bother their users and has not dropped the number of people who are still using it.
it is the same as all those who keep going back to faucets and use them even though it is terrible for their privacy, security and it harms them when it comes to paying fees for all the dust they've accumulated.

[buwaytress]

A bit weird for the CEO to say Braver won't work just because it dropped revenue streams and can only rely on donations. Sure, but if it does turn out to be a good product and there are users who definitely find resonance with that, it could work why not? I still use some stuff today that has always relied entirely on donations (Irfanview is one haha). Bitcoin development too, actually, if you look at it (and don't say blockstream haha).

[joniboini]

A bit weird for the CEO to say Braver won't work just because it dropped revenue streams and can only rely on donations. Sure, but if it does turn out to be a good product and there are users who definitely find resonance with that, it could work why not?

The problem is with the probability and he said that because he still views it as a business. I think if Braver are positioned as a community-backed product like Bitcoin or any open-source projects that are loved by many, then donation or even contribution on the code is going to a solid backing.

It definitely won't make as many profits as any money-oriented/business apps, but it could survive.

[babygun]

i have a feeling that a very large percentage (like maybe 90%) of those who have ever used Brave browser have been using it because of its (micro) earning potential not its promise of privacy. that is why things like KYC, lack of privacy in design and a lot of other crap they pulled didn't bother their users and has not dropped the number of people who are still using it.
it is the same as all those who keep going back to faucets and use them even though it is terrible for their privacy, security and it harms them when it comes to paying fees for all the dust they've accumulated.

I agree 100%. Sometime ago, I also downloaded it and like 90-95% of the people, I did it mainly for the rewards. They do have however some nice extra features such as the built-in ad blocker, tor, faster speed compared to Chrome. But I stopped using Brave, because the rewards are too low and I don't want to do KYC with Uphold for a couple of bucks.

I don't see many people who will use Braver browser. Project is doomed.

[smyslov]

This could become a better version without those bull s..., now we know that Brave was set up just for the developers to make tons of money, they already had their token in the market, just enough for a profit, so why those ads and the referral links, they are like hitting many birds with one stone, rewards is not really high only have  less than $1 after a month with those ads.

[Metherry]

Does anyone know how much profit can be made from that browser?

I don't think it's enough to get you to use a site, it's more like a bitcoin facets, right?

And then what is the development that this browser does, all the good features can be done with a small team of developers,
Just block ads is the unique feature that they offer, the rest of the things are a compilation of some features.
I think they want to achieve profits quickly and the last thing that matters to them is the protection of privacy.

will remove it.