[dasmoth]

I don't particularly like this answer but: Safari.

It's now back to running (legitimately...) only on Apple's hardware (there was a Windows version in the past, but it's long gone), so you are paying for it -- it's just that the price is rolled into the up-front purchase cost of the hardware.

Apple does seem at least somewhat thinking about privacy as a differentiating feature, and Safari has some explicit anti-tracking features.

Is it the perfect solution: no. But I'm starting to think seriously about using it as my desktop browser.

[gt2]

But isn't Safari slow to update/bug fix? This includes security issues.

My thought is it's hard to choose Safari for their privacy when I have a higher possibility to get hacked due to a new hack that Chrome quickly updated (or didn't have in the first place). I'm sure most have seen them, but referring to these [0, 1, 2].

Even more tangible -- Google warns about visiting sites sometimes, while Safari will gladly let you enter. Isn't that a huge vector?

0: https://www.google.com/search?q=google+warning+thi+site&sour...:

1: https://support.google.com/chrome/answer/99020?co=GENIE.Plat...

2: https://support.google.com/websearch/answer/45449?hl=en

[dasmoth]

Yes, I said I didn't really like the answer and the slow updates are a big part of that.

The "Google warnings" aspect, I'm pretty ambivalent about. They probably have saved some people some trouble, but on the other hand the gatekeeping power that feature hands to Google doesn't fill be with delight.

[gt2]

I hear ya. You probably know this, but for anyone else reading this, you can continue on to the site they are warning about. So it's not gatekeeping in the sense most people use that word. And anecdotal, but when I've gotten the warning, it was for good reason.