The Browser Company's philosophical product conundrums
The inherent tensions in building ambitious new products that lowkey want to make people spend less time on computers ⎯ as seen by someone who was raised by the Internet but is a little sick of it.
I’ve been an avid Chromebook user for almost a decade, due to basically 2 reasons:
1) They can do everything I need to do in a laptop in a simple way.
2) They are way more afforadable than Mac and Windows laptops.
However, I have been very interested in The Browser Company since I read news about its inception. And the launch of Arc turbocharged that interest. Their product philosophy and storytelling is extremely compelling to me, so I’ve kept up with every video, newsletter, podcast, and blog post they put out. After a while, I began feeling like I needed a Mac for the first time, only to try this new kind of browser. 1
My M1 Macbook Air hasn’t arrived yet, so my first-hand experience with Arc is still limited to the few minutes I’ve played with it on a couple friends’ Macs after I basically forced them to install it. I know it’s weird to be so invested on a product I haven’t really tried, but the Internet has been so important in my life that such a bold reimagination of how we use it makes me extremely curious.
*I started writing this article before The Browser Company announced they’re developing a whole new product, but I think my points apply to BCNY’s holistic vision and challenges, not necesarily just to Arc.
I see 3 realms in how humans interact with the digital world.
The Internet - Vibrant and versatile. The point of this whole thing. What’s popping and for good reason. The digital extension of IRL. The problem is that a lot of stuff we do and have on the internet today feels very gaseous, scattered, distracting, and overwhelming.
Local computing - I feel nostalgia for local computing because it reminds me of simpler times, where I had a more tangible sense of ownership over my digital things. It feels safer and cozier because you don’t depend on an internet connection, external servers, or whether a company kills off your favorite app. And that’s a great thing. You can also focus way better. The challenge now is making it play well with the internet world.
IRL - What we value most. Going outside, living moments in physical spaces, with other humans. The actual thing that should be improved by all our time spent in computers. We shouldn’t lose sight of this. IRL is actually the absence of digital interfaces, save for some occasions with brief interactions like taking a photo or playing music.
And I want to explore the ways in which The Browser Company’s product vision interacts with each of these realms.
The almOSt dilemma
Arc feels almost like an Operating System of its own. almOSt. But it still lives inside the paradigm and restraints of Big Tech OSes. Because, right now, it needs to.
This coexistance generates a tension between two systems of power: Arc ⎯hosting the all-powerful Internet⎯ and whatever OS it’s running on. For now, this is especially true for the MacOS and Windows versions.
I imagine there’s a sort of friction or mental noise that happens when you don’t know whether to toggle a feature on a web-app’s menu, Arc’s settings, or the OS’s own settings. There might be a dissonance in the visual hierarchy between Arc elements and the OS’s elements (Dock vs Sidebar; In-app settings vs System-wide settings, etc).
For example, I’ve seen the Spotify web-app on a few Arc ads. It’s a good fit because it showcases how you can personalize its looks and show off Arc’s integrated miniplayer. But the reality is that a lot of people might prefer to use the Spotify desktop app because it’s a more complete application (although the gap has definitely shrunk). It lets you upload songs that are not on Spotify’s library and it has a proper place on the dock. It also looks and feels more polished and tangible, like you actually have that music. But using the desktop app implies going out of Arc’s realm, and so the questions arise: will the miniplayer still work? where do I lower the volume? why does it have to be like this?
So the existential question here would be: How comfortable can Arc be without being the ruling layer of a computer? Or how capable is it to integrate with OS-level ctools? How does The Browser Company envision the coexistence of the all-mighty web with a traditional desktop environment and its applications? As Arc grows more powerful and intelligent and versatile, won't OS X or Windows become obstacles? Will they eventually develop their own OS or are you content living under Apple's/Microsoft's reign?
I rewatched Arc’s original internet computer video and the emphasis of online computing kind of struck me. I understand where Josh (The Browser Company’s CEO) is going but I also believe that offline local computing shouldn’t be so dismissed.
What's the value of Arc on an offline computer?
What Josh said in the podcast about our stuff on web-apps not feeling like actually our stuff rang so true and that's the other reason why I’m switching out of Chrome OS after almost 10 years. Computers are awesome but like 95% of the noise and stress of our digital lives comes from the internet. And Chromebooks are basically internet machines (limited to a subpar browser). Lately I’ve been fantasizing about doing a lot of stuff on my computer without being connected to the internet, without distractions. That’s why I’m finally switching to a full-fledged desktop OS.
But how does Arc fit into all this?
Being able to download your stuff and store it is a crucial part of achieving that sense of ownership that's missing in today's online world.
David Pierce put it nicely:
The idea of “file over app” is to care a lot more about your data itself than the app or platform it’s in. Like, the app you’re using now? Probably not going to be around in 50 years. Text files and JPGs and PDFs? Way more likely to still be here! So invest in formats that last, not apps that don’t.
Something like Raindrop built directly into Arc’s tab archive system but more tangible and actionable (beyond accumulating links, extracting the valuable stuff from them and put it in the right places, where it’s useful) would be fantastic.2 I’d also put an eye on what Sublime and Capacities are doing. Something like that but with robust offline functionalities would be a true game-changer. This would probably complicate Arc’s interface too much but it could also be a separate product that works seamlessly with Arc (and the new thing they’re building), and even other browsers!3
Media
In a similar line: How can Arc contribute to bringing back a sense of ownership over our beloved media?
Music: integrate streaming services, online radios, Genius, RateYourMusic, local files, physical collection, and local shows.
Movies: integrate streaming services, Letterboxd, local files, physical collection and local theaters.
Books: integrate Goodreads, ebooks, physical collection, local public library.
My suggestion for the future: build Arc OS but don’t make the same mistakes as Chrome OS. Give the local computing realm the respect and attention it deserves, without losing sight of its compatibility with the internet realm. Make the local computing realm and the internet realm understand each other and work together nicely.
Changing the system from inside (the screen)
I felt so seen and hopeful when I listened to the third point of this video4:
Why you care about Arc Search? Why you care about your phone, your computer, or AI, any of this stuff?
[…]
Let’s just not lose the plot in the midst of all this change and these exciting inventions and developments. These exciting inventions and developments on their own, on their face, are not that interesting; and in fact if we lose sight of what we want to use these tools for, it can get pretty grim. But I don’t think it will, and I don’t think it needs to.
A question I wanna pose is like “Man are we tryna… What do we wanna use this for? What in our lives outside of our screen, outside of our devices, are we in search of?”
When I fantasize about digital products that don’t exist, they always solve a problem brought on by the massive digitalization of modern life. Sounds kind of like a paradox. But, Making An App For That is still the best way of fixing our digital problems and taking us back to the real world; sort of trying to fix the problem from the inside.
Making An App For That is still the best way of fixing our digital problems and taking us back to the real world; sort of trying to fix the problem from the inside.
The thing is that builduing a product that attempts to make the internet beautiful while trying to make us use it less is inherently tricky.
What's beautiful about the internet in the end? It's a hard question to answer when nowadays most of it feels so disingenuous and overwhelming.
The beauty of the internet resides in connecting with other people with shared interests in meaningful ways and getting things done in a more efficient manner.
I believe digital interfaces should be an extension and expansion of our minds and ideas, and facilitators or enablers for things we ultimately want to achieve in the physical world, and for connections between humans who are far away.
Aren't all good feelings on the digital world just an imitation of good feelings in real life? What's a good-feeling-thing that's exclusive to the internet? Or better digitally than physically?
The temptation of skeumorphism
As a sort of sidenote, this is why I’m kinda against the skeuomorphism revival, even though I know it’s the cool thing now. Skeumorphism is useful for new interfaces because it’s didactic. It’s also fun for the first few times but then I think it starts getting in the way. It tries to replicate physical sensations in the digital world, and that’s good for learning metaphors, but I fear that a skeumorpic internet might be more bloated and distractive, even if it feels prettier sometimes. I mean, I think skeuomorphism has its place and time, but it shouldn’t sugar up the fact that we’re having a trivial and transactional interaction with a machine.
That’s why I think the skeuomorphism revival has good intentions but is ultimately misguided.
I’m not saying all digital interfaces should be boring, but most should! The content and tools shown in these interfaces is already interesting enough! And the minimalism I seek doesn’t mean that all interfaces look the same, just that there’s more consistency in design. Actually I think that this simplicity should come in hand with UI modularity that gives users agency over the design of their interfaces, allowing broader costumization that adresses their needs and tastes. So if someone loves skeumorphism no matter what, just go ahead and make your computer a full-blown metaphor for real life tools! But give the user agency. Boosts are a huge advance in that direction.
If our hope is to create software with feeling, it means inviting people in to craft it for themselves — to mold it to the contours of their unique lives and taste.
(from Optimizing for Feelings)
It’s very refreshing to see tech innovation without the savior complex and relentless digital optimism powered by greed instead actual care for humans. Steve Jobs maybe couldn't have predicted we were all gonna become screen addicts when he launched the iPhone, but it’s disgusting seeing the current heads of Meta, Apple, Google, etc today treating Digital Addiction as a minor inconvenience because fighting it wouldn’t benefit their core business.
I write all of this as someone who has spent an embarrassing percentage of his lifetime looking at screens, and is trying to promote a healthier relationship between humans and technology.
BCNY could be the great anti-metaverse company, fixing the problem (our relationship with screens) from the inside (screens)!
I see BCNY in the same light as 37signals, Framework, Punkt, Teenage Engineering, Analogue, Light, the whole New Hardware movement, and even Blackbird Spyplane, which is not a tech company but a culture publication that shares this ethos very strongly. Organizations not only creating amazing products for humans, but operating with a philosophy that goes against the established cultural norms of Big Tech.
The difference -and possible advantage- is that, out of the group, BCNY is the one most entrenched in the chaotic screenocracy, with the golden opportunity of aiming to push people away from within. It’s important to note that it’s not necessary to full-on satanize screens and everything they represent in order to advocate for a healthier relationship with them. I think BCNY is uniquely positioned to communicate this nuanced messaging because they’re a digital product that embraces they joy of the internet, but they don’t manufacture screens nor profit on people’s attention (screentime).
The Browser Company gives me hope for the future of technology and it’s a joy to be a witness of their journey.
This article is part of a series focused on The Browser Company of New York:
10 features I’d love to see in "Arc 2.0" — or whatever BCNY’s new product is gonna be called!
notes on The Browser Company's Communications — they're extremely good overall but I still have Thoughts®
questions about The Browser Company of New York — more focused on business-y stuff.
I think these sort of power user features could be Arc’s path to monetization.
I like to call this Trojan Horse Growth.
The pre-announcement of BCNY’s next product also touches on this point, dreaming about how the power of LLMs (anticipation and automatization) can make our interactions with computers much briefer.