After looking for weeks I created a list of categories... And it depends on what are you willing to sacrifice:
Just want a plain browser, without logins, synchronization, without ANY external connections etc:
Ungoogled-chromium (Windows, Linux...) and Bromite (Android).
Don't care about full web compatibility or speed but keep your privacy under control:
Waterfox Classic and Palemoon (Windows and Linux).
Don't care about Open Source vs Closed Source licensing (but still preserve some privacy):
Vivaldi (the most customizable Chromium-based browser out there but the UI even after several improvements feels a bit slower than other browsers).
Don't care about privacy... Then it's quite easy:
Edge, Chrome, Opera.
If you are into cryptocurrencies or need a nice browser with decent adblocking on iOS: Brave.
I decided to use Vivaldi since I like to personalize the looks of my browser quite a lot.
The best recommendation is to try everything for a while and settle with the one you feel most comfortable.
Dillo, NetSurf.
They are fine if you mostly use sites like HN and other mostly-static content, maybe with some forms interaction. Those are HTML4-ish "document web" browsers. There's also all the text-based ones that those who want to send an even stronger message about how much they hate the "modern web" can use.
That leaves Edge, Chrome, Opera and Vivaldi
Because you even mentioned them, I don't think you understand the question. Let me rephrase it: who will develop, and have a sustainable business model for a new browser engine and break Chromium's monoculture, other than Firefox?
I see no proof of this.
>> is struggling
Money-wise, no. Management-wise, hell-to-the-yes.
Another downside to Vivaldi is they don’t push out many releases meaning that their security is likely lagging behind. My assumption on this is their custom UI takes a while to build after a new release.
Edge and Chrome both push out timely security updates.
EDIT: Typo.
There is an entire economy and ecosystem based on rewarding sinister web design. The complexity and resources involved in keeping pace with contemporary garbage while qualifying simply as a functional browser is too vast. So much that I suspect it's all downhill from here. I don't believe we'll ever see an all around user-friendly, privacy respecting, well designed, functional browser. I'd delight in being wrong here, but sincerely doubt it.
Yeah, HTML standards have basically evolved into a kind of regulatory capture that protects Google's browser. Even Microsoft found them too difficult to implement and meet user expectations.
> I don't believe we'll ever see an all around user-friendly, privacy respecting, well designed, functional browser. I'd delight in being wrong here, but sincerely doubt it.
At least if we rely on market incentives. I suppose we might see one if it's regulated into existence (e.g. European regulators forcing Google, Microsoft, etc. to provide browsers that respect privacy and provide functional extension capability for ad blockers and the like).
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28746873
Edit - Also 'Ublock Origin' works best with Firefox
Brave is Blink not webkit - Blink has been developed by Google, Facebook, Microsoft, Intel and many others. It is the standard for web rendering just as linux is for web hosting. There is nothing wrong with open standards.
It's like we didn't learn anything from IE6.
Also blink is just a fork of webkit.
What exactly is wrong with open standards? Would you say linux creates a hosting monoculture? That's just ridiculous. Blink has been contributed to by just about every major tech company, that isn't a monoculture thats how open standards work.
An implementation cannot be a standard since a standard describes what a implementation needs to do while a implementation will need to both decide what parts of standards to implement and how to implement them and will do many things that are not described in standards. There are many behaviors, bugs and implementation details of Blink that should not and cannot be part of a standard.
As soon as a implementation becomes a standard we get ossification and implementation bugs in the standard as the only way to conform to the standard is the exact original implementation.
Besides all that while Blink has contributors from many individuals and companies it is clear that google steers the ship.
The web standards were built on the idea that multiple independent implementations were crucial, and it is a required step for a proposal to become a standard.
Linux isn't a standard either, the standard in that case would be POSIX and linux is "Mostly POSIX-compliant".
Nothing, but Blink isn't one.
> Would you say linux creates a hosting monoculture?
Yes, obviously. The GNU/Linux hegemony is a pet peeve of mine, especially because it breeds this absurd "well the most common implementation does X, so screw everyone else" mindset that needlessly hinders alternatives.
Is gecko any different in this regard? That is how forking works.
>The corporations have too much control over it
Blink seems better in this regard, it has received major contributions from just about every major tech company out there diversifying its control. Gecko has been primarily just mozilla (especially these days since it only represents about 3% of the market).
I guess I lost my touch, I've been feeding the troll.
You mean mozilia where over 70% of their revenue is from google?
https://www.ghacks.net/2020/12/10/mozillas-revenue-jumped-to...
The Tor Browser without Tor. It’s Firefox with all the “extras” stripped away.
The instructions on how to do so are easy to find on the web. It also supports all the same add-ons/plugins.
To privacy and functionality thow shalt count. Not to infunctionality, nor tracking.
Google is Right Out.
Do you work there? I see no other way you could possibly think this.
If not, do you have a source you can provide?
> Chrome tends to have more features than Firefox
This is true. Some features, I have no use for, some are outside of standards and thus lead to the same issue as years ago with IE, and some fall under both.
Admittedly, me having no use for some doesn't mean they don't have value for other people. It's the standard extend and extinguishing that worries me.
And yes, a standard that only one company can hit may as well be extinguished.
Unironically read Google's privacy policy page.
> We also collect the content you create, upload, or receive from others when using our services. This includes things like email you write and receive, photos and videos you save, docs and spreadsheets you create, and comments you make on YouTube videos.
So first up. User created data, this seems necessary ofc. Lower down, it says emails aren't used for advertising, but says nothing about using them for tracking.
> We collect information about the apps, browsers, and devices you use to access Google services, which helps us provide features like automatic product updates and dimming your screen if your battery runs low.
> The information we collect includes unique identifiers, browser type and settings, device type and settings, operating system, mobile network information including carrier name and phone number, and application version number. We also collect information about the interaction of your apps, browsers, and devices with our services, including IP address, crash reports, system activity, and the date, time, and referrer URL of your request.
We totally need to have your device information on hour servers so we can checks notes provide automatic screen dimming! Yup! Can't do that on device!
And then there's the sheer amount of other information they collect in this paragraph, especially the phone number, and "unique identifiers" - which have proven to pretty much always be trackable back to an individual if someone care's to look.
Pretty much the only thing here which doesn't violate privacy is the last sentence.
> We collect this information when a Google service on your device contacts our servers — for example, when you install an app from the Play Store or when a service checks for automatic updates.
Hm, that seems pretty frequent but whatever I guess. Maybe this is just with Android?
> If you’re using an Android device with Google apps, your device periodically contacts Google servers to provide information about your device and connection to our services. This information includes things like your device type, carrier name, crash reports, and which apps you've installed.
Nope, that gets it's own section. Oh, and look they get every. single. app. installed - regardless of it's from Play Store.
> We collect information about your activity in our services, which we use to do things like recommend a YouTube video you might like. The activity information we collect may include:
Terms you search for
Videos you watch
Views and interactions with content and ads
Voice and audio information when you use audio features
Purchase activity
People with whom you communicate or share content
Activity on third-party sites and apps that use our services
Chrome browsing history you’ve synced with your Google Account
Most of this seems reasonable, but "Activity on third-party sites and apps that use our services" boils down to "We take whatever we want if the domain isn't ours".
> We collect information about your location when you use our services, which helps us offer features like driving directions for your weekend getaway or showtimes for movies playing near you.
This is one of the few that has actual functionality requirements to collect, but the degree to which it is collected is problematic.
Also, this information is effectively PII, but last time I checked can be shared with "Unique Identifiers" as anonymized information.
Skipping the rest of the location section to:
> In some circumstances, Google also collects information about you from publicly accessible sources. For example, if your name appears in your local newspaper, Google’s Search engine may index that article and display it to other people if they search for your name. We may also collect information about you from trusted partners, such as directory services who provide us with business information to be displayed on Google’s services, marketing partners who provide us with information about potential customers of our business services, and security partners who provide us with information to protect against abuse. We also receive information from advertisers to provide advertising and research services on their behalf.
Stuff from publicly accessible sources seem fair.
Collecting from "trusted partners" means that "We didn't collect all that data not in the privacy policy, we bought it!". This applies to most of the bottom 2/3 of this paragraph.
> We use various technologies to collect and store information, including cookies, pixel tags, local storage, such as browser web storage or application data caches, databases, and server logs.
Yep, this is standard to get the information they're collecting. Uncalled for, but standard.
The whole "Provide personalized services, including content and ads" section is exactly what you would expect, though this section:
> We don’t show you personalized ads based on sensitive categories, such as race, religion, sexual orientation, or health.
is worrying. "We have this information, but Trust Us(tm), we won't abuse it :) !"
Also
> We don’t show you personalized ads based on your content from Drive, Gmail, or Photos.
"We won't show you ad's from this" - but not "We won't look at this."
Skipping into "Protect Google, our users, and the public"
> We use information to help improve the safety and reliability of our services. This includes detecting, preventing, and responding to fraud, abuse, security risks, and technical issues that could harm Google, our users, or the public.
Oh boy, time for Security Purposes(tm)!
> And we analyze your content to help us detect abuse such as spam, malware, and illegal content.
There's where Gmail, Drive, and Photo scanning are allowed.
> We may combine the information we collect among our services and across your devices for the purposes described above. For example, if you watch videos of guitar players on YouTube, you might see an ad for guitar lessons on a site that uses our ad products. Depending on your account settings, your activity on other sites and apps may be associated with your personal information in order to improve Google’s services and the ads delivered by Google.
We'll build a profile full of information about you, ready for taking for whichever relevant government, rogue employee, or anyone who breaks our system! But don't worry, it is very secure :) !
Skipping past "Privacy controls" - which having used as an end user I can confirm are full of false choices and dark patterns.
Skipping into "When Google shares your information"
> We provide personal information to our affiliates and other trusted businesses or persons to process it for us, based on our instructions and in compliance with our Privacy Policy and any other appropriate confidentiality and security measures. For example, we use service providers to help us with customer support.
Trust Us and Our Partners(tm). Google has already shown themselves untrustworthy, and they don't share who these partners are, so we have no way of vetting them.
> [We will share data to] Meet any applicable law, regulation, legal process, or enforceable governmental request. We share information about the number and type of requests we receive from governments in our Transparency Report.
We will share any and all data with whichever government is relevant! Glad we created a comprehensive picture of each individual user already!
> [We will share data to ]Protect against harm to the rights, property or safety of Google, our users, or the public as required or permitted by law.
Ah yes, Security Purposes(tm). "We'll do whatever we want with sharing, as permitted by law!"
That's an awful lot.
> We may share non-personally identifiable information publicly and with our partners — like publishers, advertisers, developers, or rights holders.
There's no such thing as non-personally identifiable information ( https://www.cs.princeton.edu/~arvindn/publications/browsing-... ), and looky there, it's getting shared with everyone.
---
Anyways, I don't think that was the source you were looking for. It boils down to "We collect everything, and Trust Us!"
Google has repeatedly shown themselves to not be trustworthy, so forgive me if I don't.
Edit: And keep in mind this is just what they admit to. In my experience, the larger the business the more "sensitive" actions there are.
Google's abuse of their search dominance to push their way into browsers is a compelling reason to boycott it.