I think the big difference why I would go for a pro if I ever replace my mini is ProMotion. It seems like even in this new model you are stuck with the old lower refresh rate which is quite jarring.
Performance wise, even older ipads were well beyond what I need so if you can handle lower refresh rate for sure a better deal.
Never been a fan of tailwind, but this is kinda sad. Given it's popularity what a sad situation that they aren't getting able to get properly funded.
I think the solution is one of the big companies with lots of money to acquire tailwind. Specifically Vercel. They use it, their v0 thing uses tailwind allover, they have bought a bunch of open source companies in the past, and they should have deep enough pockets. Last year they acquired tremor blocks, which is a UI library, that uses tailwind!
That's neat. Not sure if I would deploy it, as it will be hard to explain/teach people how to use it (as I see in other comments already), but I do see the value in it.
It solves the "drag and drop beyond what fits the screen" much better than you can with drag and drop, the awkward auto-scroll-on-nearing-the-edge-thing.
I would say, if you need to reorder many items, it gets a bit disorienting, the whole list moves as it's anchored to the item you are moving. Maybe there is a way to combine drag and drop where this kicks in if you go beyond the bounds of the visible area.
Also don't think this can work well with multiple axis/drop zones.
- Browser company: not sure, I think they have a subscription, but I assume they still mostly run on VC money.
Chrome, Safari, and Edge are funded by their parent companies. I believe Google does also pay Apple $20B to be the default search engine on Safari and ios.
So you could make an argument that Google pays for browsers. A lot of browsers run on Chromium, owned and funded by Google (although technically open source). Except Apple and Mozilla who get search money from Google.
> Chrome, Safari, and Edge are funded by their parent companies.
Of course, but how do the parent companies fund them?
If I were a company, I'd only fund something if it provided capital (or the reasonable assumption of capital in an agreeable timeframe). But nobody is paying for Chrome (Google Chrome), Safari, or Edge.
Someone may say "but everyone uses a browser. If Google stopped releasing Chrome it would upset a lot of people." Of course, but Chrome is a huge effort, very complex, lots of money. Google isn't pouring money into it because it makes lots of people happy, nor are they doing it because they have a gun pointed at them (although I bet legislative guns would appear quickly if Google did unexpectedly pull Chrome from the virtual shelves). So I'm left with the only alternative: money being moved from something revenue generating (probably advertising as you've mentioned or selling datasets etc) to the Chrome effort to keep it going.
My question is about the specifics. These are publicly-traded companies, but a lot of the decisions are opaque. Has anyone here on HN come across good data or analysis of specifically how money is moved around to support the huge efforts of maintaining popular web browsers?
Imo it's pretty transparent, it's indeed all about ads. 70-80% of Google's revenue is from ads, that says it all imo.
First of all because of search: If you type something in the search bar of your browser, and that takes you to Google, you see all those ads and Google makes a lot of money.
Second of all because the browser is the entry point to the web. If you browse the web, the chance that you come across Google Adsense ads is very high, in other words, if you browse the web, Google makes money.
Browsers can control what you see, they can have ad blockers, they can replace ads (like the shady business Brave tried at some point), but also change the extension API so ad blockers are less effective (see manifest v3).
Conclusion: Controlling how people browse the internet is highly valuable as direct money maker (search ads) but also to make sure nobody but you can mess with 70-80% of your revenue. That alone is worth every dollar they spend on it.
Microsoft has Bing (but also based on chromium so less investment). Apple needs a browser for their devices, and gets 20B from Google to make it the default search engine (again, if Google can serve more ads, it makes more money). I don't know if Safari is well funded, they lag behind a bit currently.
Edit: Apple also has motivations btw. They have been lagging on implementing a lot of the features in Safari IOS that would make webapps more capable of replacing native apps, the App Store that Apple makes tons of money on... If you allow other browser you don't control that, so you need your own.
Second part why Google might want to fund Mozilla (and Safari to some extend) is to keep regulators happy. Being able to say "no no, it's not a monopoly, see!" is quite useful.
Idk if there is more data, but imo all you have to do is look at the financials, and it's pretty obvious that it's all about serving ads, billions of dollars in ads, directly or indirectly.
Delivering ads is based on data about you, so you get the most effective ads. Your browsing data is really valuable data in that sense.
If you read about the privacy controls in chrome you get a pretty good idea of what they collect:
> Your topics of interest are noted by Chrome and are based on your recent browsing history. Sites can also store info with Chrome about your interests. As you keep browsing, Chrome may be asked to share stored info about ad topics or site-suggested ads to help give you a more personalized ad experience. To measure the performance of ads, limited types of data can be shared among sites and apps.
This seems really nice. Wasn't aware of hack club but that just looks like a wonderful construction and organization.
In a world of VC backed open source projects with big profit motivations, it's refreshing to see things like this. Definitely going to give ghostty another try!
Wait, so there is one example, which shows the R and Python equivalents are pretty much the same..
I was all hyped up, ready to see the amazing examples and arguments that would convince me to pick up R, and it gave me absolutely nothing (except quotes and brackets..).
Just some different fields in the manifest, and there are specifics that work completely different or are not available (for example favicons).
I have tried Chrome -> Firefox before and it was surprisingly easy. Safari is more difficult in my experience, it's missing complete API's like the bookmarks one.
It is definitely possible, but not straightforward. With Manifest V3, the only way you can do this stuff is with the browser userScripts API. That is the only way you can execute remote code within the browser (and each script is considered "remote code").
These changes are the reason many of the existing userscript managers stopped working/being developed after MV3 went live. It is a real pain in the butt and unfortunately the functionality is not exactly the same between chrome and the generic browser API that firefox uses. There are a lot of edge cases that make everything even more of a pain.
Life would be much better (in many ways) if chrome didn't force MV3 down our throats.
I think the glaring issue underlying this is that the big companies are not investing enough in the tools they rely on.
I agree with some of the arguments that patching up vulnerabilities is important, but it's crazy to put that expectation on unpaid volunteers when you flood them with CVE's some completely irrelevant.
Also the solution is fairly simple: Either, you submit a PR instead of an issue. Or, you send a generous donation with the issue to reward and motivate the people who do the work.
The amount of revenue they generate using these packages will easily offset the cost of funding the projects, so I really think it's a fair expectation for companies to contribute either by delivering work or funds.
The solution is even simpler. The project puts the bug report in its triage backlog. It works through it in its own time, and decides on severity and priority. That's the time-honored method.
The compounding factor here is the automated reporting and disclosure process of Google's Project Zero. GPZ automatically discloses bugs after 90 days. Even if Google does not expect bugs to be fixed within this period, the FFmpeg devs clearly feel pressure.
But it is an open source project, basically a hobby for most devs. Why accept pressure at all? Continue to proceed in the time-honored method. If and when Youtube explodes because of a FFmpeg bug, Google has only itself to blame. They could have done something but decided to freeload.
There is a premium plan for the AI features, so that's the strategy, which does make some sense, I bet a lot of people will want to have those features.
Good software is never freemium. It is either paid upfront or it is a timebomb. I am okay with keeping things proprietary and asking for a fair price. Once free-to-play is introduced, the software is gone for good.
I thought about buying Affinity a couple of months ago since they offered a perpetual license. Now I won't even think installing it
