Even as a developer, when I saw "tokenbrowser.com", I was expecting to see a web browser. Visually, it looks more like a chat client (makes sense since they are taking inspiration from WeChat).
Having been on the marketing side of a consumer product which used "browser" to describe what it was, I can confirm that "browser" = "web browser" to nearly everyone (analysts included) and is truly, sincerely not worth fighting.
In my experience, until they fix the "browser" positioning, nearly every conversation they have with anyone who might care about the actual product will include 2-5 minutes of explaining and rationalizing the use of a word that people already believe they understand.
Frankly, I think brave needs to look at this and realize they could race to be a point of sale payment solution. This miscommunication makes me realize what brave payments could turn into.
> We were unable to complete your search. Please try again.
I think this is exactly what's missing from blockchain-derived technologies: a simple human interface to remote resources. More to the point, calling this thing a browser anchors it firmly into a well-known context. This should be useful for explaining it to our parents.
I think if I told my mom this was a browser, she would be confused to see something that looks more like her text message than a web page.
In the phrasing you chose, you imply that it's a web browser -- this is the source of the hypothetical confusion.
Now try this: "Mom, this is a lot like a web browser (i.e. firefox, chrome, etc) but it's not for web pages. It's for a different kind of content".
Surely you'll admit this a helpful description...
Exactly, and this thing behaves (outwardly) a lot like a web browser. It's just not browsing the web.
The description is useful for hilighting the similarities between both artefacts, mostly because Token is, stricto-sensu, a browser!
I don't know about you, but my Mom would find this explanation a lot more helpful than the browser one.
I'm looking at the Apache LDAP browser right now. Not a spec of HTML anywhere.
Sounds like that is a tool meant for technical users, e.g. IT staff, though, not general users.
For that matter, I know a number of folks who don't know what a web browser is either. It's just "The Internet", thanks to Microsoft's marketing, or "the Googles", thanks to Google's. When I used to read Google user feedback, it was amazing how many people thought that anything that happened online or offline due to a Google Search was Google's fault - we'd get feedback like "The plumber came 2 hours late...I want my money back!"
(You can install file browsers other than the default one on most OSes, true. But how many people actually do that? Even fewer than install Web browsers.)
Technically a browser isn't even a full application. It's part of the interface of a bunch of different types of applications. A "web browser" is a file renderer, a content fetch utility, an object container that's targeted by a built-in scripting language, and a whole lot more. One of its functions - just one - is to follow hyperlinks and let you browser / surf for other content. And yet "browser" means, yes, "web browser".
This is not an argument about what the word means or should mean. It's an admission that we allowed the word to become specialized. Now it's either go with the status quo or try to take the word back, like "hacker", or maybe "Kleenex", "Aspirin", or "Rollerblade".
Perhaps a more constructive question would be: what is the best way to describe such apps?