YouTube is a 1st party service for Google, so you can't ad-block their tracking. And you aren't ad-blocking YouTube due to the spying, so don't be disingenuous.
Yes, it really costs that much.
Given Chrome's vast market share, I'm pretty sure its users like it. And you know what? Most users won't mind switching to uBlock Origin Lite, and the elephant in the room is that “manifest v3” also increases security, with Chrome being indeed the most secure browser.
I don't agree with Mozilla paying that huge CEO salary, but…
Do you know Firefox's handy new offline translation feature? That's AI a well. And Firefox is the only browser that doesn't leak your web page when translating it.
There are plenty of other uses for AI, such as describing images without alt-text for the blind, or summarization. I, for one, want AI in my browser, you can't really say that “nobody wants it”, when many people clearly do.
Nobody uses Ladybird, at this point it's vaporware. And Thunderbird is still based on Firefox.
The development of Firefox costs around $200 million per year. That's more than what Wikimedia can get from donations, and Wikipedia is a website that everyone uses. And you want to rely on donations from people that ad-block YouTube instead of paying for Premium.
And let's say that it manages to bring those costs down to $100 million per year or less and manages to get it from donations (when pigs will fly) … it still has to compete with a Chrome whose estimated cost goes over $1 billion per year.
DNS-level blocking doesn't work very well. It only blocks requests to 3rd party domains; however, publishers can just turn to 1st party solutions, and many do just that.
E.g., DNS-level blocking will not block the sponsored links in Google's Search or the ads on YouTube. And while my NextDNS has blocked ads on my Samsung TV, it was unable to block ads on the new Max streaming service (former HBO).
I guess it depends on why we're ad-blocking. If it's for privacy, I guess it's fine, but 1st party requests can and do share your data with first parties, with just one more level of indirection.
I, for one, block ads because ads can be dangerous for my family and even for myself. I don't want ads because I don't want behavior modification, or malware. I also don't want my son to watch ads for services that should be illegal, such as gambling services. And don't get me wrong, I'm one of those people that actually pays for subscriptions to avoid ads, I'm against freeloading as well.
So, DNS-level blocking is just not enough, unless you're happy that you're at least blocking some ads on the scum of the Internet, but then I'm personally not interested in those websites anyway.
It's how companies like Microsoft or Adobe could grow and gain uncontested monopolies. Because, due to piracy, price was no longer a good enough differentiator. And it's why "Linux on the desktop" never happened.
There aren't many studies on this topic and the available ones are bullshit, as they don't take into account second order effects of piracy, one of which being the rise of streaming with DRM, which also concentrates power in the hands of a few Big Tech companies.
Piracy is one of the biggest reasons for why we have monopolies. The phenomenon is now repeated with ad blockers. And the irony of the situation is that people point at monopolies to justify piracy or the use of ad blockers.
Growing up in communism, under the Iron Curtain, we weren't finding too much milk in the eighties at the store, so our source for dairy was the country side, friends, family, grandparents, so I grew up with raw milk.
Raw milk from grass fed animals has a very different, much richer taste.
For one you can control what you feed your animals. The taste and quality of milk varies greatly depending on what they eat. You can feed them high quality grass, although in winter some cereals are fine. Anybody that drinks raw milk knows that the taste of what they eat really is reflected in the milk. E.g. if you let them graze on a field with flowers, it will have a flowery taste.
Leave raw milk on the table to turn sour and you get yogurt. It's quite good too. And you can't do that with the pasteurized milk from the store, it doesn't matter if it's whole or not, doesn't work.
Goes without saying that with high quality raw milk it's quite easy to make cheese too, which again, you can't with the milk your can find at the store.
As for why it's more healthy, the pasteurization process reduces the nutritional quality of milk. There are also weak indications that people with a lactose intolerance can tolerate raw milk better than they can tolerate pasteurized milk. It might be that it contains some lactase. Although this claim you should take with a grain of salt.
And in the US at least you can argue that the pasteurized milk you find in stores is ultra-processed. Read the following article:
Note that I'm not saying that you can't find a good source of raw milk from a farm with free range, grass fed animals and great quality control. But it's harder to do so and if you're living in the city, depending on the city, next to impossible.
I do encourage you to try find such a source. The difference in taste is well worth it.
And if you grow it yourself, it's much like anything else. For example tomatoes no longer taste well due to being picked too early. Grow your own tomatoes in season and the difference is night and day.
If you're living at the country side, producing your own milk is healthier, can be a good hobby while you're young and a great occupation after you're retired. Manual labor is good exercise and can be fulfilling.
But I'd probably go with goats instead.
I don't think maintaining your own email server can be very fulfilling, but hobbies are a matter of taste.
You mean the platform that specifically disallows competing browser engines, making Firefox just a shell over a Safari-enabled web view and that can't even access Safari's content blockers? The only Firefox that's not running a Firefox engine under the hood? That Firefox?
Given you're a developer for Brave, it's not possible for you to not know this, therefore your statement is misleading at best.
The pitfalls of Chromium are obvious... it gives Google the power to impose on the market whatever engine feature they want, they are the ones defining the web standards and there's nothing Brave can do about it because Brave does not have the capacity to maintain a full fork, or to fight for web standards, just like it doesn't have the capacity to build a browser without piggybacking on somebody else.
Don't get me wrong, nowadays even Microsoft admitted total defeat, but then Brave should recognize its total dependence on Google and its continued goodwill.
I grew up with ZX Spectrum, MS-DOS, Windows 3.x, started programming in secondary school and while in high school watched as the Internet took over the world.
> They start from a default implementation layer - usually REST, HTTP, and JSON - and then try to build the abstraction layer out of that.
Also known as the Unix philosophy ;-)
This isn't about comfort, but about doing what needs to be done.
Every webmail interface in existence has implemented their own half baked, proprietary protocol that does what JMAP is doing. Or do you think Google's Gmail web interface is using IMAP?
---
> "hackers who were comfortable with open-ended bottom-up development"
That's because they lacked basic tools. Hackers in those days weren't getting much work done either.
You might not like it, but every programming language in existence has easy to use HTTP and JSON parsing libraries. It's basically a solved problem.
As a software developer I dread working with protocols that are not via HTTP because most often then not the clients are badly designed, leaky and I can't fix it by changing the client.
And I love JSON in spite of its inefficiencies, because it is easy to debug and there are really good JSON parsing libraries for the statically typed languages I'm using (Scala, Haskell). You basically declare your high level types and the library will derive (de)serialization and validation logic for you.
Also consider that this isn't necessarily about building full fledged email clients. Maybe you want an automated way to read an Inbox and import certain messages in your database. Maybe you build a browser extension that counts the number of unread messages. There are many, many micro tasks that developers would be interested in doing, if they had an easy way to do it.
And do you know what protocol does NOT have good libraries for every language in existence? IMAP.
It's basically not a competition from my perspective, HTTP/JSON wins by default.
(I'm using the royal you here, obviously, I don't know you)
People rarely pay when there isn't scarcity. Wikimedia can pull it off because it has billions of unique visitors per month.