As a competitor, let's add that they are ad company too.

Name one browser that isn't funded by ads.

Even the minor browsers, pretending to not be funded by ads at this point (while the VC capital is drying up) depend on one of the 3 browser engines, all of which are funded by ads.

Ladybird is funded entirely through donations, and doesn't depend on one of the 3 browser engines.

> Name one browser that isn't funded by ads.

Safari? Unless you're going to say that Apple gets the money for Safari through ads which, y'know, technically correct but disingenuous in this context, surely.

Google is paying Apple 20 billion per year in their search deal, which is 40 times more than what Mozilla takes.

Safari is funded ENTIRELY by Google's ads, also making a profit, and this is a fact. We can entertain a counterfactual, maybe Safari would still be funded without Google funding it with billions, but that's not the world we live in today.

And given Apple's reluctance to advance the web, going against their other cash cows, it's disingenuous to suggest otherwise. I recommend reading this opinion: https://infrequently.org/2022/06/apple-is-not-defending-brow...

> less than good faith

Could you elaborate?

(I know next to nothing about Brave, so I may not be aware of obvious examples)

Not the person you're replying to and neither do I fully agree with them, but brave haa had issues with their crypto (BAT) system. Nothing that appears purposely malicious but quite possibly misleading in some cases.

See: 1 - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_(web_browser)#Business_m... 2 - https://web.archive.org/web/20181224011529/https://twitter.c...