Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login

Pros:

* Supports both Chrome and Firefox extensions, vs. Brave supporting Chrome only.

* Not so much with the skeezy crypto emphasis.

Cons:

* Brave has a multi-year head start, and has worked all the kinks out. Sync works, etc.

* This is Apple-only. Brave works on every major device.

I won’t be leaving Brave anytime soon. But competition is a good thing, and this beta is worth keeping an eye on.




Saying that a purposely Apple-only product has a con that it is Apple-only is like saying a vanilla ice cream has a con that it is not chocolate.


When the ask is to compare it with Brave, noting that it is an Apple-only product is indeed a con against Orion.


No it isn’t, if you’re not using macOS your not the target audience


Hm, not exactly. I’m an enthusiastic Orion user and love how well it works on macOS, but very much don’t appreciate that I now have something locking me into it.


I've (M1/16GB MBA) got my usual 40+ tabs open and Brave is only using 536MB of memory. It's rock solid. I use G-Suite/Workplace and everything has been buttery smooth since I turned off Brave's crypto/BAT notifications. I agree that keychain is the only reason I still use Safari for some things (and perfect sync with iPhone), but I lean more on 1Password these days.


Are you sure you're not just looking at the main process?


Haha yeah. M1 w/ 16 GB here as well. I just counted and I have 59 tabs open. According to Brave's task manager the GPU process alone is at 2.4 GB followed by two Gitlab tabs grouped to 894 MB (wow, killing those) and then all the others averaging maybe 90 MB. Looking at Activity Monitor I'd eyeball the sum of the processes to be maybe 4 GB.


I count Brave's emphasis on crypto as a pro and necessary for our hopefully one day ad-less future.

If you block ads without allowing the ability to donate a token you are effectively stealing from site owners and causing the rise of paywalls and other restrictions on the internet.


Putting aside legitimate qualms about Brave’s ad blocking business model, “skeezy” refers to Brave themselves showing me by default multiple home screen ads for various crypto wallet and NFT brokers. Opinions vary wildly on HN, but for me that entire scene is kissing cousins with MLM.


> Putting aside legitimate qualms about Brave’s ad blocking business model

The other alternatives to Chrome (Edge, Opera, Vivaldi, and Firefox[0]) also come with a built in ad blocker.

Is it only a problem because on top of the blocking - which others also do - they also have the ads/crypto business?

---

[0] On Firefox it's more of a "tracking blocker", but things like Adsense are blocked by it.


Yeah affiliates is how they make money. You can hide all that stuff, but it's a good way to support them if you buy crypto often.

Beats being the product using Google, or having a product fall behind like Mozilla because you had to fire all of your engineers.


> you are effectively stealing from site owners

This is "you wouldn't download a car" level argument.


Maybe I could have phrased it better, but the point is site resources cost money.

If no one is viewing the site, it probably doesn't cost anything.

Once people start using the site, it starts costing resources to run it.

Currently, there's two ways to pay for those resources, ads or subscriptions.

BAT allows you to easily take tips and continue the service for free that people expect, without ads.


"If you block ads without allowing the ability to donate a token you are effectively stealing from site owners and causing the rise of paywalls and other restrictions on the internet."

No


Great rebuttal buddy.

Sites costs money, users need a way to pay site owners.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: