Brave: A new browser with built-in adblock and payment solutions

[Deozaan]

There's a new browser called Brave in town which is focused on solving the awful situation with advertisers (malvertisers) through two steps:

1. Block intrusive ads natively. No ad blocking extension needed.
2. Built-in micro-payment system (via Bitcoin?) so you can easily support the websites you visit and/or disable the non-intrusive ads.

It's your device. It's your time.
So make it your Internet. The new Brave browser blocks all the greed and ugliness on
the Web that slows you down and invades your privacy. Then
we put clean ads back, to fund website owners and Brave
users alike. Users can spend their funds to go ad-free
on their favorite sites.

Speed comparison video:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kHWf6hRV-GM

Brave is also focused on security/privacy with the following features:

• Brave blocks harmful advertising
• Brave redirects sites to HTTPS
• Brave blocks Tracking Pixels and Tracking Cookies

There's also a relatively short writeup about the purpose of Brave, but I'm having trouble picking out a self-contained segment to include as a quote, so just read it all yourself:

https://brave.com/#about

[wraith808]

Do you know what browser base it's based on?  Or if it even is?  I want to say firefox because of a lot of the verbiage, but I'm not sure.

[Deozaan]

Do you know what browser base it's based on?  Or if it even is?  I want to say firefox because of a lot of the verbiage, but I'm not sure.

Based on the source code, I am under the impression that it's not just a fork of Chrome or Firefox. You may be getting Firefox vibes because the Brave founder/president/CEO, Brendan Eich, was formerly the CEO of Firefox or Mozilla or something.

[wraith808]

Do you know what browser base it's based on?  Or if it even is?  I want to say firefox because of a lot of the verbiage, but I'm not sure.

Based on the source code, I am under the impression that it's not just a fork of Chrome or Firefox. You may be getting Firefox vibes because the Brave founder/president/CEO, Brendan Eich, was formerly the CEO of Firefox or Mozilla or something.

Nope... as I said, I was getting it from the verbiage.  I didn't look into who anyone was or anything, it was just idle wondering when I saw some of the verbiage and the use of httpsanywhere.

[Deozaan]

Nope... as I said, I was getting it from the verbiage.  I didn't look into who anyone was or anything, it was just idle wondering when I saw some of the verbiage and the use of httpsanywhere.

That's what I meant. Perhaps the same kind of verbiage/philosophy/etc., as Firefox was used because some of the same people who were behind Firefox are now behind Brave.

[Giampy]

We are flooded by browsers.

[Innuendo]

Hmmm..."We put clean ads back..."

Sounds like a new browser with built-in ad-replacing rather than ad-blocking.

[Deozaan]

Hmmm..."We put clean ads back..."

Sounds like a new browser with built-in ad-replacing rather than ad-blocking.

Sounds similar to Adblock Plus's philosophy of allowing certain "good" (i.e. non-malvertising/non-intrusive) ads.

Then we put clean ads back, to fund [...] Brave users.

Yeah, and when I think about it, it sounds kinda... bad.

Imagine if someone stripped out all your ads and replaced them with their own. So you no longer got money for serving ads, and instead someone else was benefiting from your content. I don't see how this works in a way that is fair unless literally everyone signed up for Brave's payment system and thus would receive money from ads/micropayments.

Also, if I use Brave, how do I--or why should I--get funds just from using Brave? How does that work?

[40hz]

"Supported by advertising" is a non-sustainable business model. Sooner or later we're going to need to get ourselves away from that idea. It's like the old joke:

Q: How do you sell so many TV sets?

a: Oh it's easy. We sell them below cost and make it up in volume!

[rgdot]

"Supported by advertising" is a non-sustainable business model. Sooner or later we're going to need to get ourselves away from that idea.

Ever since internet ads started we hear this, and at some point it gets old. It is not the user problem and it's easy why, because other mediums exist where just viewing ads is enough, TV ads payouts are based on how many people view them (ratings) and not those who 'click' or buy. Frankly internet ad networks and advertisers should get over themselves.

[40hz]

"Supported by advertising" is a non-sustainable business model. Sooner or later we're going to need to get ourselves away from that idea.

Ever since internet ads started we hear this, and at some point it gets old. It is not the user problem and it's easy why, because other mediums exist where just viewing ads is enough, TV ads payouts are based on how many people view them (ratings) and not those who 'click' or buy. Frankly internet ad networks and advertisers should get over themselves.

I think you hit on an important difference. Ads on a oneway broadcast medium like TV tend to be far less intrusive then ads on an interactive "broadcatch" medium like the web.

[Innuendo]

Ever since internet ads started we hear this, and at some point it gets old. It is not the user problem and it's easy why, because other mediums exist where just viewing ads is enough, TV ads payouts are based on how many people view them (ratings) and not those who 'click' or buy.

Unfortunately (?), at least here in the United States, television isn't a medium where viewing ads is enough. Consumers subscribe to cable/satellite/etc. and are still served ads. Even local network affiliates who are usually free over the air are getting a piece of the subscription pie to bolster the revenue they get from ads.

Since I'm 'old' I remember back in the '70s and '80s when a 30 minute block of network programming gave you 27 minutes of program and 3 minutes worth of ads. These days a 30 minute block of network programming gives you 20-21 minutes of program and 9-10 minutes of commercials. I can watch nearly anything I want in my cable TV programming package, but rather than DVR it, I'll just download it from the internet because all the commercials are already cut out.

I think radio has become the worst, though. You'll get 12-15 minutes of programming (if you're lucky) and then 5-8 minutes of ads.

[rgdot]

Ever since internet ads started we hear this, and at some point it gets old. It is not the user problem and it's easy why, because other mediums exist where just viewing ads is enough, TV ads payouts are based on how many people view them (ratings) and not those who 'click' or buy.

Unfortunately (?), at least here in the United States, television isn't a medium where viewing ads is enough. Consumers subscribe to cable/satellite/etc. and are still served ads. Even local network affiliates who are usually free over the air are getting a piece of the subscription pie to bolster the revenue they get from ads.

Since I'm 'old' I remember back in the '70s and '80s when a 30 minute block of network programming gave you 27 minutes of program and 3 minutes worth of ads. These days a 30 minute block of network programming gives you 20-21 minutes of program and 9-10 minutes of commercials. I can watch nearly anything I want in my cable TV programming package, but rather than DVR it, I'll just download it from the internet because all the commercials are already cut out.

I think radio has become the worst, though. You'll get 12-15 minutes of programming (if you're lucky) and then 5-8 minutes of ads.

Several points to be made,

Traditional networks are sustainable by just ratings - those 'newer' channels are sometimes too - meaning they don't require clicks. What you are paying cable companies is not finding itself in TV channel pockets as you say, in some places existing over the air channels receive nothing, it is remaining in the cable companies pockets.

Speciality channels like HBO which do get paid by cable companies are at least in part (yes channel bundling takes away choice in Canada and elsewhere) supported by consumer choice so the internet ad model analogy is still a false one in my opinion. I visit a site by choice but my point was about how much the site owner makes by me just 'viewing' his/her ads.

The frequency of ads is a separate issue, people by the most part supported deregulation that allowed it, if people don't like it they have to look in the mirror.

[Deozaan]

I'm posting this from the latest Brave v0.7 developer release.

It's pretty bare bones at the moment, but it definitely feels pretty speedy. But that's probably because it's pretty bare bones at the moment.

Chrome or Firefox might also feel just as speedy without any plugins/extensions or 15+ tabs opened at a time.

It has an interesting interface, with the address bar centered along the top of the screen. It also tells you how long it took to load the current webpage (this one took 972 ms).



Also, if you don't have your mouse cursor over the address bar, it just shows the current webpage's title:



There isn't a lot in the way of settings/options at the moment.



And some things are just broken/nonfunctional, such as while writing this post, if I click the icon to insert a link, the usual dialog asking me for the URL and title of the link doesn't pop up. And when I drag & drop the images into the attachment section, it properly adds the images but it also opens the images in a new tab. At least it doesn't open them in the current tab like other browsers would do. I also watched a few YouTube videos and the ads didn't show up, but I'm not sure if that's because of Brave or because I didn't disable AdGuard, but one thing that was broken was that trying to watch the videos full screen didn't hide the title bar and address bar parts of the browser.

Anyway, I read somewhere--though I'm sorry I can't remember where--that Brave is at least 25% faster than Firefox, and I can say that it definitely feels faster.

It's nice to see more innovation/competition in the browser space. I'm interested to see where things will turn out.

[Stoic Joker]

@Innuendo - I miss the 70's too.

The frequency of ads is a separate issue, people by the most part supported deregulation that allowed it, if people don't like it they have to look in the mirror.

Regulation only serves to stipulate a point that it can't be screwed up more than. That's not fixing the problem, that's just using an arbitrary point to force the argument under the rug.

Realistically, the Ads aren't in-and-of-themselves even the issue. it's the poorly written backend (tracking and etc.) code that lags page load and turns the user experience into total shit. So instead of trying to block ads in an ever escalating pissing contest ... What they really need to do with a browser is bake in a pass/fail mechanism that simply omits anything on the page that doesn't respond in a - brutally enforced - timely fashion. So if - as is often said - you only have 3 seconds to captivate and hold a visitors attention, the page had damn well better load straight in half of that. And anything on the page that causes it to bog down the user experience should be removed on the fly. That way everybody can actually win for a change.

  Ad loads fast-->page loads fast-->Visitor happy.
  Ad gets seen-->page gets liked-->site op happy.
  Page gets seen-->Ad gets seen-->marketer happy.
  Everybody gets what the want.

I personally couldn't care less if they put 1,000 ads on a page, as long as they don't slow my roll. Because the 3 second clock is ticking double time...and I'm a fickle bitch.

[f0dder]

A browser whose main two selling points are things that are better handled as addons, and a business model that's doomed to fail?

Nah.

[Innuendo]

Realistically, the Ads aren't in-and-of-themselves even the issue. it's the poorly written backend (tracking and etc.) code that lags page load and turns the user experience into total shit.

Let us also not forget the fact that ad servers are a very real attack vector for malware.

[TaoPhoenix]

"I personally couldn't care less if they put 1,000 ads on a page, as long as they don't slow my roll."

I found a new wrinkle this week.

On YouTube, pre-loaded non-skippable-until-x-seconds ad, "Annotations", that you have to click the gear to turn off, the "ad ad" that needs an x-close, and the Closer ad.

THAT slows down my roll !

[Stoic Joker]

Realistically, the Ads aren't in-and-of-themselves even the issue. it's the poorly written backend (tracking and etc.) code that lags page load and turns the user experience into total shit.

Let us also not forget the fact that ad servers are a very real attack vector for malware.

Quite true, but trying to get the eyeball craving marketing types to stop being greedy assholes is just not a realistic goal...So I'm compartmentalizing this into something that could possibly actually be solved amicably.

"I personally couldn't care less if they put 1,000 ads on a page, as long as they don't slow my roll."

I found a new wrinkle this week.

On YouTube, pre-loaded non-skippable-until-x-seconds ad, "Annotations", that you have to click the gear to turn off, the "ad ad" that needs an x-close, and the Closer ad.

THAT slows down my roll !

Mine too, but that's an escalated reaction or their part to the popularity of ad blockers. This is why allowing the rest of the page to be used reliably would prevent them from "needing" to infringe into the content space to get their ads viewed.

[Deozaan]

It has been a year and I've recently given the Brave browser a try again.

On Android it is based on Chrome browser. As such it is fully featured and works well. I like it. Much better than that stupid Link Bubble thing they were using a while ago (which still exists, but is no longer considered Brave proper).

On Windows it is based on I don't know what. Safari? It definitely looks and feels like iTunes/Apple. Clean, minimal, and with the address bar centered in the title bar area (like track info in iTunes). In fact I'm pretty sure I went to a download page for some software--one of those new-fangled ones that auto-detects your OS and directs you to the appropriate link for your OS--and it recommended the MacOS version of their software. It still seems a bit bare bones, but it also seems fast and works well. I'm definitely not using it as my primary (or secondary) browser yet, but for those of you who looked into this a year ago and promptly forgot about it, it may be worth looking into again.

I'm growing increasingly wary of all the tracking going on with everything I do, so I've been putting out "feelers" for alternatives to the many Google products I use all the time. Brave may become a nice alternative. I'm not sure it's there yet, but maybe with time it will be.

[Deozaan]

It's been almost another year and since I last posted here and while I did use Brave as my primary browser for a while, I've mostly moved on from Brave to Vivaldi, at least on desktop. But I still use Brave as my default browser on Android.

But anyway the reason I came back to resurrect this old thread is to mention the progress Brave has made in terms of payments. They've since created their own ERC20 token on the Ethereum blockchain, called Basic Attention Token (BAT). If you opt-in to their payment systems, you can top up your wallet on a monthly basis and any website you visit will automatically get paid a certain amount based on how often/long you visit each site, etc.



Right now to encourage adoption, Brave are currently giving away ~$1,000,000 worth of BAT--about $5 worth to every person who decides to try it out. Note that you can't just go and claim the BAT and keep it for yourself or sell it. Once it is claimed to your Brave wallet, it automatically will be earmarked to pay websites you visit. More details about the BAT giveaway can be found here:

https://brave.com/million

So give it a try, and be sure to visit DonationCoder in Brave after you've enabled payments so some of the funds can be sent to supporting this wonderful site.



mouser: If you want to be able to claim the funds earmarked for this site, you need to verify yourself/this site with BAT, here: https://publishers.basicattentiontoken.org/

[IainB]

The novel and seemingly ideological business model enforced by Brave apparently attempts to somehow magically circumvent fundamental economic principles and human nature. That could arguably be doomed to probable failure, as mentioned above:
EDIT 2018-02-13 (I had meant to insert this quote)

A browser whose main two selling points are things that are better handled as addons, and a business model that's doomed to fail?
Nah.

I don't like being forced/coerced to do anything, especially by a sodding browser. I have tried out Brave, and abandoned it, as - if the above was not bad enough - the user is not enabled to be in control of the browser to the same extent as (say) with Slimjet.

[Edvard]

I've been using Brave for a while now, as it is VERY fast and does adblocking very well.  I agree it has some glitches that I'd rather not deal with.

- Can't edit the default page shortcuts.  There are 'x's to delete them, but it doesn't do anything.  You click it, and a dialog comes up that says "Thumbnail removed" but it's still there.  Some discussion on the Brave forum about it, and it's apparently on the list as something that needs to be fixed.
- No 'History' item in the settings dialogs (that I could find, anyway).  I have to enter "about:history" in the address bar.
- Embedded YouTube videos can't be full-screened.  The video enlarges but the window stays the same size.  Very curious.
- Sometimes (maybe once or twice a week) it "loses" CSS; I hit the 'back' button and suddenly I'm in 1994 with no font colors.
- Sometimes I can't input text anywhere; the address bar, forum posting, information form filling, nothing.  I have to restart the browser.

Well, after putting it all on one page, I think I'm done.  Vivaldi is looking better lately...

[Edvard]

Spoke too soon.  I had forgotten that Vivaldi and Opera both have this annoying thing where they don't play embedded Soundcloud clips and don't play some animated .gif pictures.  Some, not all.  Despite it's quirks, Brave never had that problem.

What next, Chromium again?

[IainB]

...What next, Chromium again?

Yes, That's how I ended up as well. But with Slimjet, which is a Chrome-based browser with some useful differences.
I did return to Chrome Canary/64-bit (as a trial), and then Chromium (as a trial), but a trial of Slimjet showed that it seems to better meet my peculiar requirements.