Brave Origin

Posted by baal80spam 23 hours ago

Comments

Comment by mw888 4 hours ago

The cost is $60.

https://account.brave.com/?intent=checkout&product=origin

I'm just repeating this from another comment deeper-in. @microflash https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47833071#47843941

Brave's features don't bother me nearly as much as some people. It's privacy-oriented, I don't mind. Crypto isn't just an obtuse deal-breaker. Though it all begs the question how exactly monetization occurs.

According to Grok:

1. Opt-in ads that Brave serves and is paid for. "Ads are matched on-device using local browsing data—no profiling or data leaves your device, unlike Big Tech ads."

2. Subscriptions to premium features.

3. Revenue on Brave wallet fees.

Comment by tnelsond4 13 hours ago

So by having you pay to disable Tor, the llm, and all their extra features are they basically admitting that none of their users actually want those things and that bundling those things is how they generate revenue?

Comment by tredre3 9 hours ago

I see that you're trying to frame it as a "gotcha", but they've always said that those features were to generate revenue. And this news isn't any different, literally the first line:

    Brave Origin is a minimalist version of Brave that allows users to disable the revenue-generating features that otherwise support Brave as a business.

Comment by tnelsond4 8 hours ago

I've been using brave all these years and I just thought they were extra features, other than the crypto one, didn't think there was any money incentive in them wasting compute on AI.

Comment by InfinityByTen 6 hours ago

I've never understood how their Brave Credits were supposed to work, but I liked the idea that someone wanted to try out a different model to ads how we know them for about a century.

Ads made magazines, newspaper, news, radio, tv and now internet terrible to be with and I'm honestly curious what can be done to improve the situation.

Comment by wky 16 hours ago

Interesting that it’s paying to remove features. Seems reasonable considering it’s paying to get an officially supported build, and if you’d rather not there’s probably a fork doing the same out there.

Edit: That it’s free (as in WinRAR?) on Linux is interesting; what would be the motive for doing that?

Comment by estimator7292 14 hours ago

It costs a lot of money to publish software on Windows. You have to pay Microsoft a ransom to sign your application or otherwise users get giant scary warnings about running unknown software.

Comment by tredre3 9 hours ago

It costs $200 to get a certificate from Microsoft to sign as many software as you want. Brave has more than $100M/yr revenue.

Please put more efforts in your anti-Microsoft rhetoric.

Comment by sph 14 hours ago

I'd use Brave, and pay for it, if it wasn't running Blink. I know Gecko is a pain in the butt to use, but I'd rather not make Google's hegemony on the web stronger by using their code.

Sorry Brendan, hopefully you'll look into Ladybird once it's more usable.

Comment by mfro 16 hours ago

I have found literally 0 incentive to switch from firefox to anything else.

Comment by rpdillon 16 hours ago

They've watered down their privacy promises quite a bit:

> Mozilla may also receive location-related keywords from your search (such as when you search for “Boston”) and share this with our partners to provide recommended and sponsored content. Where this occurs, Mozilla cannot associate the keyword search with an individual user once the search suggestion has been served and partners are never able to associate search suggestions with an individual user. You can remove this functionality at any time by turning off Sponsored Suggestions—more information on how to do this is available in the relevant Firefox Support page.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/02/firefox-deletes-...

Comment by AuthAuth 12 hours ago

you're really complaining that they're using location based keywords? Using a location based keyword to serve a relevant sponsored post isnt personal data. I swear mozilla haters just want it to die so they can use chrome guilt free.

Comment by Cider9986 6 hours ago

Firefox security bad, Chrome good and safe.

Comment by esperent 5 hours ago

I unfortunately have. Enough things don't work on Firefox (especially anything Microsoft related, weird account related issues) that I end up having to use Chrome for quite a few things, and eventually the friction of remembering what I'm logged into in each browser drives me slowly towards the one where everything works... Which is Chrome. Well, Chromium. But maybe I'll try this new Brave Origin since it's free on Linux.

Comment by ImJamal 17 hours ago

I hope this works out well and Mozilla takes notice. I've never understood why Mozilla doesn't at least take donations for Firefox.

Comment by pwdisswordfishs 14 hours ago

There are very good reasons why you 501(c)(3) doesn't allow setting up a non-profit that accept "donations" that benefit one of the non-profit's wholly owned for-profit subsidiaries.

Comment by pwdisswordfishs 14 hours ago

Mozilla also isn't exactly strapped for cash. They pull in around half a billion dollars per year (to accomplish what could be done on a budget a tenth that size).

Comment by Lord_Zero 15 hours ago

There is no button or option for me to buy Brave Origin.

Comment by microflash 8 hours ago

Here is the $60 checkout page for upto 10 activations https://account.brave.com/?intent=checkout&product=origin

Comment by dominick-cc 13 hours ago

How much does it cost?

Comment by gib444 15 hours ago

Upto 10 activations? Ie if I reinstall the app or my OS 10 times, that's it - buy another code?

Comment by mikelward 2 minutes ago

Yep, that's a dealbreaker for me.

Comment by theNotFractured 17 hours ago

Paying for your browser is crazy when open-source ones like firefox and soon ladybird exist.

Comment by Valodim 16 hours ago

People keep mentioning ladybird like it'll be a serious contender as a daily driver in the next 10 years. While I do think they're doing impressive work for a tech demo, they are a couple hundred person years behind on an incredibly big piece of software. how could they possibly catch up?

Comment by kbelder 15 hours ago

Large enterprise software development is *hugely* inefficient. I wouldn't be surprised if, for any given feature, Ladybird developers could implement it in a tenth the time that current Chrome developers would.

Of course, they're ten thousand features behind, so it will take many years. I just think it's not fair to look at the huge number of developers working on Chrome and use that predict the productivity of a smaller, more motivated, less constrained team.

Comment by guywithahat 17 hours ago

I disagree; I use my browser everyday, including for work. If I can instead pay a little money and have a better experience that makes sense to me, sort of like Kagi but for browsers.