Maximum privacy many times comes with compatibility issues and pages which don't properly.
Brave is an ad company, so they are interested in blocking the ads of other ad companies, that's their business and that's why they do it.
Firefox is not a browser from an ad company, so what they offer out of the box is a browser with the less compatibility issues possible, and that's not an easy task when they use their own engine.
The job to block ads etc is done by extensions in Firefox and since Firefox is not an ad company it makes sense for them.
They have ublock origin as a recommended featured extension.
olympus
joined 1 year ago
Nice try by Brave. But they only can fool their fanboys.
Brave sells ads, so they block the ads of their competitors by default.
Firefox is not an ad company to block the ads of other ad companies out-of-the-box.
We have ublock origin for that.
I hope it's true, but honestly I don't believe sites and opinions that have to do with google from sites like the verge.
Because sites like the verge are in reality rivals to google. For example verge is owned by voxmedia which has an advertising company and a web advertsing platform. They are rivals to google which also is an advertising company. They hate google because they want google's money lol. I seriously doubt they can be objective especially to google.
They are focused on AV1. Good, I will focused on it in future, I hope it beats MPEG-LA's VVC.
That's not the point, in case you don't know everybody is focusing on AV1 including Google.
Google is actually the main developer of AV1.
Nobody asks from Mozilla to include software HEVC decoding. They would have to pay a lot of money for it and honestly they shouldn't give to MPEG-LA a single dollar.
They could do what Chromium has done and include ONLY hardware decoding support.
Chromium pays nothing to MPEG-LA for that because they use our own hardware, our graphics card, and the manufacturer of the graphics card has already paid for it.
I also don't see any issue coming from it with widevine, if there isn't any issue from it in Chromium, I don't see why it would cause issues only to Firefox.
They proparly don't have the resources to include support for it. Totally understandable. But I will be selfish on this, my choice of my primary browser would be based on my needs....
Yes, mv2 is a good example. But not a deal breaker for me because most chromium based browsers have a NATIVE adblocker on them. NATIVE adlocking, you know... ablocking that will never break because Chrome, Edge or Firefox don't have NATIVE adbloking on them and you have to rely on extensions for that.
There is demand for hevc. Just have a look at Jeffylin, Emby or Plex forums. No, Mozilla doesn't care, they have been mulitple requests and they close them all with RESOLVED WONTFIX. People won't keep begging Mozilla, they are just switching to another browser.
First of all jpegxl was an experimental flag and option in chromium, it never made it as a "real" feature in chromium based browsers. Find a better example, that ain't it.
About your other comment, you have no idea how popular Plex, Jellyfin and Emby are. In desktop if they use Firefox they are stuck at re-encoding their videos on the fly to h264 and waste resources and quality. Many of them have no idea that chromium based browsers now support directplay on hevc. Everyday many of them are informed and leave Firefox.
They will. If Apple doesn't comply with EU Digital Markets Act (DMA) they will have to pay fines of up to 10% of a company's global turnover for infringements. Let them try not to comply lol. Their deadline is on May 2024.
For me, until all below are supported Firefox can't be my primary browser.
- PWA not supported and only possible with FirefoxPWA. I can't rely to anything but native, Mozilla could break FirefoxPWA any time they want.
- I use my browser for my multimedia needs and I use my own Emby Server. Firefox doesn't support mkv container and the most important it desn't support HEVC. Please do not tell me about HEVC royalties and how much Mozilla would have to pay MPEG-LA. Chromium based browsers have enabled hardware HEVC decoding and they pay nothing to MPEG-LA because the royalties have been already payed by my graphics card. Mozilla simply doesn't care.
Brave is not funded by an ad company like Google.
Because they are an ad company themselves, no ad company is going to fund them, they are competitors.
Apart from that Brave is dependant to Google way more. More than 90% of their browser's code is by Google developers. They don't even have their own store lol and distribute extensions in Brave through Google's chrome store!
That's independence? Calling Google for something basic like installing extensions to your browser?
I prefer Mozilla's and Vivaldi's model. They both get money from their search deals (Mozilla with Google, Vivaldi with Microsoft) but they are not ad companies themselves.
Yes, I wouldn't use a browser from an ad company, no matter the size of the company.