Talk:Arc (web browser)

Smells like an ad
This article reads less like an informative piece about the browser and more like an advertisement. 2600:4040:A3C4:EB00:4D89:2A80:7B84:C27C (talk) 13:45, 27 July 2023 (UTC)


 * I can assure you that was not my attention while writing this. Could you point out where you think the article has an advertorial feel? Schminnte (talk • contribs) 01:18, 11 August 2023 (UTC)
 * Not OP, but I felt the same immediately when I read it. It advertises features that have been present in browsers since decades, like picking the colors, and also points out no negative point, although the elefant in the room is obviously the closed-source-ness, which is a big negative point, especially in critical applications like browsers. especially in a market where 70% of the market share belongs to open source browsers. The article doesn't feel balanced imo. Wobfan (talk) 12:38, 13 May 2024 (UTC)

Publicly available?
The way the first paragraph is written, one might assume that the browser is no longer in private beta, e.g.: publicly available. However, visiting https://arc.net/, there is only a link to "join the waitlist", but no button to download anything. Is there a version publicly available elsewhere, or does the initial paragraph require rephrasing? HuGo_87 (talk) 14:42, 24 August 2023 (UTC)


 * If you look at the paragraph "Production and release", it describes how the browser had previously underwent a closed beta before being opened to the public via invites. All the best, Schminnte (talk • contribs) 15:21, 24 August 2023 (UTC)
 * As of right now, there are public releases to download for iOS (via. Apple App Store) and macOS (via. their website). From what I'm aware, the only "waitlist" I can see is for their Windows version (if you visit the website on a Windows machine or (even though they don't have Linux planned at least for now) a Linux machine) Kirbix12 (talk) 17:11, 7 September 2023 (UTC)

C++ mention is odd.
This line:

"...Microsoft Windows (Closed Limited Beta, built in Swift rather than C++ )."

Makes little sense as to why it mention C++ at all. It sort of implies the default language for Windows development or historically for Arc was C++, which isn't true in both cases. The cited source does the same thing with no source or context. Looking into it I see there is actually a tweet from the CEO saying it won't be in C# but rather Swift. That actually makes some sense since .NET and C# are basically the de-facto stack for Windows applications. I would guess the journalist just tried to parrot that without understanding or noticing the difference. In either case, C++ shouldn't be there, I think.

https://twitter.com/joshm/status/1588541600720113666

104.205.80.35 (talk) 07:18, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

Criticism section
I have reinstated the criticism section about the account requirement. The RS included were written knowing well it was a closed beta, and we don't censor negative opinions. If they think it's unreasonable to require an account even during a closed beta stage, it will be reflected in the article as-is. We don't speculate on why they did it. The publication time of the article is not relevant either, given that the material fact has not changed. NM 08:50, 24 February 2024 (UTC)