
Brave Zoom Competitor - jarsin
https://together.brave.com/
======
PascLeRasc
From the creators of "what if we fought ads on the web by making our own ads
you can't block and attaching a cryptocurrency to it" comes video calling that
doesn't work on Firefox. No thanks.

~~~
sharkmerry
Ads are here to stay unless human nature about paying for shit changes.
Brave's approach while still having ads may nor may not be worse than FireFox
who receive the majority of their revenue by partnering with search engines,
who, y'know, mine your data and dont pay for it

~~~
PascLeRasc
We don't need to guess about Brave's approach, it is worse:
[https://practicaltypography.com/the-cowardice-of-
brave.html](https://practicaltypography.com/the-cowardice-of-brave.html)

~~~
sharkmerry
Wow, thats a long piece. He ends his essay with

> You know what would’ve been brave, Mr. Eich? Charging users for your
> software—on the idea that personal privacy is worth it—and puncturing the
> myth that web browsers must be free.

Which my point you were replying to already addressed. People dont like paying
for shit.

> Or helping publishers find a way to induce more readers to pay for the
> material they find valuable, without the unnecessary indirection of ads and
> cryptocurrency. Like I do.

No indication how much money he makes "his way" or if he would make more with
ads. No indication how to "induce more readers to pay". It may work on a
single blog but doesnt work when you are scaling.

------
bdesbrisay
I think the main problem I (Along with many others I know) have with zoom is
that it basically requires you to download and install something before you
can join a call. Obviously you can call in but if you want good quality video
you have to download their app. Being forced to download the Brave browser in
order to join a call just seems like blatantly unreasonable bar of entry. If
blocking website ads wasn’t enough for me to download the browser, video calls
with only other people who have download the browser certainly won’t be
either.

~~~
yizhang7210
Well you also get a more privacy oriented browser as a perk. :)

~~~
m3kw9
maybe they could bundle an entire OS that's privacy enabled, that would be a
bigger perk?

------
spacebear
Looks like they're using Jitsi Meet: [https://github.com/brave/jitsi-
meet](https://github.com/brave/jitsi-meet)

~~~
RileyJames
Seems odd that it doesn't work on Firefox in that case, as Jitsi meet works on
Firefox. I wonder what they've done / added that lead to dropping support for
Firefox.

Edit: I guess it's strategy, pushing more people to use Brave browser, rather
than an actual limitation of the software.

~~~
duskwuff
It literally just checks whether navigator.brave.isBrave(). The following
Greasemonkey script is sufficient to fool it:

    
    
        // ==UserScript==
        // @name        Very brave
        // @match       https://together.brave.com/*
        // @grant       none
        // ==/UserScript==
        navigator.brave = { isBrave: () => true };

------
thanksforfish
Any page with actual details? This just says "download brave", which I don't
want to do.

~~~
sharkmerry
if you are running brave browser, it just allows you to launch a video call,
gives you a link to share

~~~
Jare
It is very strange that they don't even try to give non-brave users any
details.

~~~
sharkmerry
agreed, was just explaining.

------
xhkkffbf
Sounds like a good idea. We need more competition-- and if it increases
privacy, all the better.

------
l0c0b0x
Where's the case of this being a true Zoom competitor without some type of
comparison, or any other info that pertains to the specific solution it is
supposed to be the answer to?

 _Scratches head.

_ Me = Zoom user/admin that doesn't love Zoom.

~~~
ImpressiveWebs
The person who posted this link claims it's a "Zoom Competitor" with the
title. I don't necessarily think Brave believe it's a direct competitor.

------
purplezooey
Sorry, Zoom has a Linux client. That makes them awesome.

------
thepangolino
Wasn’t that something Firefox had implemented for a while before scrapping the
feature for some reason?

