I don’t see the removal of features as evidence of a failure. If anything, it’s something a lot of people in the niche browser market have wanted from Firefox for a long time.
When Mozilla adds
AI toolbars and
AI windows and
AI context menu options and
AI summaries and
a shopping toolbar and
advertisements disguised as news and
advertisements disguised as frequently visited sites and
advertisements disguised as a handy weather widget and
an invisible advertisement framework and
a Tab Notes feature that was already an extension and
Still, if the Brave team is expecting to profit through some mean, which is what I theorized, to stop the project from facing losses without completely shifting strategies would usually mean cutting parts of the project that bleed the most money as contingency.
In Firefox’s case, I’d say the scope is another. While Brave markets features, Firefox from what I can tell markets simplicity and modularity, even if both point to safety. So if Firefox gets bloated, it strays from its purpose and “betrays” their usebase. If Brave gets bloated, as long as they go in the line of “features for the users’ safety”, it should still be in line with their initial pitch.
That makes your point clearer now, thanks for elaborating.
The features removed in Brave Origin are its moneymakers: the VPN and AI assistants have a paid tier, the ads are obviously ads, the crypto pushes you towards their preferred tokens. Even the News portion of the app requires some data collection, which can be monetized.
So to me, it doesn’t look like any of their features are hemorrhaging money. Rather, they are making money, and Origin gives users a one-stop shop for opting out of the monetization schemes.
I don’t see the removal of features as evidence of a failure. If anything, it’s something a lot of people in the niche browser market have wanted from Firefox for a long time.
When Mozilla adds
I see this as desperation.
Firefox? Thought we were talking about Brave.
We are, I’m just using Firefox as a counterexample to the idea that less features = desperation.
Ah, ok.
Still, if the Brave team is expecting to profit through some mean, which is what I theorized, to stop the project from facing losses without completely shifting strategies would usually mean cutting parts of the project that bleed the most money as contingency.
In Firefox’s case, I’d say the scope is another. While Brave markets features, Firefox from what I can tell markets simplicity and modularity, even if both point to safety. So if Firefox gets bloated, it strays from its purpose and “betrays” their usebase. If Brave gets bloated, as long as they go in the line of “features for the users’ safety”, it should still be in line with their initial pitch.
That makes your point clearer now, thanks for elaborating.
The features removed in Brave Origin are its moneymakers: the VPN and AI assistants have a paid tier, the ads are obviously ads, the crypto pushes you towards their preferred tokens. Even the News portion of the app requires some data collection, which can be monetized.
So to me, it doesn’t look like any of their features are hemorrhaging money. Rather, they are making money, and Origin gives users a one-stop shop for opting out of the monetization schemes.