alt.hn

4/20/2026 at 12:02:30 PM

Brave Origin

 https://support.brave.app/hc/en-us/articles/38561489788173-What-is-Brave-Origin

by baal80spam

4/21/2026 at 6:47:48 AM

The cost is $60.

https://account.brave.com/?intent=checkout&product=origin

I'm just repeating this from another comment deeper-in. @microflash https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47833071#47843941

Brave's features don't bother me nearly as much as some people. It's privacy-oriented, I don't mind. Crypto isn't just an obtuse deal-breaker. Though it all begs the question how exactly monetization occurs.

According to Grok:

1. Opt-in ads that Brave serves and is paid for. "Ads are matched on-device using local browsing data—no profiling or data leaves your device, unlike Big Tech ads."

2. Subscriptions to premium features.

3. Revenue on Brave wallet fees.

by mw888

4/20/2026 at 10:27:18 PM

So by having you pay to disable Tor, the llm, and all their extra features are they basically admitting that none of their users actually want those things and that bundling those things is how they generate revenue?

by tnelsond4

4/21/2026 at 1:52:24 AM

I see that you're trying to frame it as a "gotcha", but they've always said that those features were to generate revenue. And this news isn't any different, literally the first line:

    Brave Origin is a minimalist version of Brave that allows users to disable the revenue-generating features that otherwise support Brave as a business.

by tredre3

4/21/2026 at 3:31:10 AM

I've been using brave all these years and I just thought they were extra features, other than the crypto one, didn't think there was any money incentive in them wasting compute on AI.

by tnelsond4

4/21/2026 at 4:53:35 AM

I've never understood how their Brave Credits were supposed to work, but I liked the idea that someone wanted to try out a different model to ads how we know them for about a century.

Ads made magazines, newspaper, news, radio, tv and now internet terrible to be with and I'm honestly curious what can be done to improve the situation.

by InfinityByTen

4/20/2026 at 6:42:48 PM

Interesting that it’s paying to remove features. Seems reasonable considering it’s paying to get an officially supported build, and if you’d rather not there’s probably a fork doing the same out there.

Edit: That it’s free (as in WinRAR?) on Linux is interesting; what would be the motive for doing that?

by wky

4/20/2026 at 8:43:03 PM

It costs a lot of money to publish software on Windows. You have to pay Microsoft a ransom to sign your application or otherwise users get giant scary warnings about running unknown software.

by estimator7292

4/21/2026 at 1:54:48 AM

It costs $200 to get a certificate from Microsoft to sign as many software as you want. Brave has more than $100M/yr revenue.

Please put more efforts in your anti-Microsoft rhetoric.

by tredre3

4/20/2026 at 8:50:06 PM

I'd use Brave, and pay for it, if it wasn't running Blink. I know Gecko is a pain in the butt to use, but I'd rather not make Google's hegemony on the web stronger by using their code.

Sorry Brendan, hopefully you'll look into Ladybird once it's more usable.

by sph

4/20/2026 at 6:06:53 PM

I hope this works out well and Mozilla takes notice. I've never understood why Mozilla doesn't at least take donations for Firefox.

by ImJamal

4/20/2026 at 8:45:05 PM

There are very good reasons why you 501(c)(3) doesn't allow setting up a non-profit that accept "donations" that benefit one of the non-profit's wholly owned for-profit subsidiaries.

by pwdisswordfishs

4/20/2026 at 8:48:28 PM

Mozilla also isn't exactly strapped for cash. They pull in around half a billion dollars per year (to accomplish what could be done on a budget a tenth that size).

by pwdisswordfishs

4/20/2026 at 6:42:22 PM

I have found literally 0 incentive to switch from firefox to anything else.

by mfro

4/20/2026 at 7:01:08 PM

They've watered down their privacy promises quite a bit:

> Mozilla may also receive location-related keywords from your search (such as when you search for “Boston”) and share this with our partners to provide recommended and sponsored content. Where this occurs, Mozilla cannot associate the keyword search with an individual user once the search suggestion has been served and partners are never able to associate search suggestions with an individual user. You can remove this functionality at any time by turning off Sponsored Suggestions—more information on how to do this is available in the relevant Firefox Support page.

https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2025/02/firefox-deletes-...

by rpdillon

4/21/2026 at 11:58:52 AM

Sharing search keywords with 3rd parties is "watering down privacy"? When are we going to stop pretending Firefox search had _any_ privacy to begin with when by default it literally send _all_ word written in the search bar to google in exchange for money.

by akimbostrawman

4/20/2026 at 11:04:35 PM

you're really complaining that they're using location based keywords? Using a location based keyword to serve a relevant sponsored post isnt personal data. I swear mozilla haters just want it to die so they can use chrome guilt free.

by AuthAuth

4/21/2026 at 12:02:56 PM

Location data is personal data, same as seach data in general but that battle has long been lost with Firefox which sells all user searches to google anyways.

by akimbostrawman

4/21/2026 at 4:50:46 AM

Firefox security bad, Chrome good and safe.

by Cider9986

4/21/2026 at 6:23:15 AM

I unfortunately have. Enough things don't work on Firefox (especially anything Microsoft related, weird account related issues) that I end up having to use Chrome for quite a few things, and eventually the friction of remembering what I'm logged into in each browser drives me slowly towards the one where everything works... Which is Chrome. Well, Chromium. But maybe I'll try this new Brave Origin since it's free on Linux.

by esperent

4/20/2026 at 9:43:30 PM

How much does it cost?

by dominick-cc

4/20/2026 at 7:54:02 PM

Upto 10 activations? Ie if I reinstall the app or my OS 10 times, that's it - buy another code?

Hm

by gib444

4/21/2026 at 11:30:32 AM

Yep, that's a dealbreaker for me.

by mikelward

4/20/2026 at 6:12:22 PM

Paying for your browser is crazy when open-source ones like firefox and soon ladybird exist.

by theNotFractured

4/20/2026 at 7:28:45 PM

People keep mentioning ladybird like it'll be a serious contender as a daily driver in the next 10 years. While I do think they're doing impressive work for a tech demo, they are a couple hundred person years behind on an incredibly big piece of software. how could they possibly catch up?

by Valodim

4/20/2026 at 8:16:45 PM

Large enterprise software development is *hugely* inefficient. I wouldn't be surprised if, for any given feature, Ladybird developers could implement it in a tenth the time that current Chrome developers would.

Of course, they're ten thousand features behind, so it will take many years. I just think it's not fair to look at the huge number of developers working on Chrome and use that predict the productivity of a smaller, more motivated, less constrained team.

by kbelder

4/20/2026 at 6:27:00 PM

I disagree; I use my browser everyday, including for work. If I can instead pay a little money and have a better experience that makes sense to me, sort of like Kagi but for browsers.

by guywithahat