91–100 of 168 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fair enough. We do have over 2,000 open issues [1] for the browser, so buggy is probably an understatement. But we are getting there. More than 1,500 issues have been addressed. And Orion is the fastest browser on Mac and completely zero telemetry at that. Give us a bit more time.. [1] https://oriongeedback.org
I hope you are measuring and attributing churn to its causes.
https://kagi.com/pricing?plan=individual I knew Kagi is paid but I didn't know they had a limit on how many searches you can perform, which is also rather low. But what I really didn't like is how dishonest they are. The lowest tier costs $5 and includes 200 searches per month. That is 6.66 per day! But they say "Includes enough searches for 99% of internet users" because "The average person searches Google three or…
~7 per day is on the low side for me. I will normally rerun the same search with different terms multiple times, especially if I'm looking for an answer to something highly technical, like easily 5-6 different searches for the same thing. And this happens multiple times per day. There's something perverse with the incentives here: they make more money if you have to perform more searches. It doesn't quite sit right i…
I believe the reason for the pricing is Kagi's cost structure. Accessing for example Google index is not free. Since they don't show ads or monetize the user in other ways, they need to pass the costs to customers.
Pay-for-what-you-use models are not common for consumer services, but I think it is a healthy pricing model. Better than fixed price packages, where you assume 80% of low volume users will cover the costs for the 20% heavy users
I have Apple Music because it comes with my family plan, and I have YouTube Music because it comes with YouTube Premium. If I had to pay just for a music service — like Spotify — they wouldn’t get my money. Even if it’s the better music streaming option in my car. But my car also plays Apple Music.
The dark pattens and ubiquity of some of these verticals means not having to care too much and still getting most of what I want. I don’t really want to care about search the way some people care about vinyl.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I appreciate the response and I'd like to reiterate that I might just not be the right user with the right expectations. Still, I hope it's useful to hear why someone might be on the fence about the product. > (9 is probably a bug) To clarify 9, the request is sent when clicking the cross on the Lens > Edit page rather on than visiting it. This also occurs when returning from maps. In both cases a new search is only…
> I do think that some aspects of the UX encourage billing superfluous searches and that, on a purely financial level, Kagi is dis-incentivised from improving this. Kagi is selling searches at cost, and we make money on subscriptions. Making a suboptimal UX id definitely not what we are doing, as people pay us for UX to be optimal. You point out some valid use-cases there and the reason we haven't addressed them so f…
I’m not going to count my searches and pay for tiers. Honestly, I could live without caring about search. It feels like another thing that could go by the wayside, like music albums. I have Apple Music because it comes with my family plan, and I have YouTube Music because it comes with YouTube Premium. If I had to pay just for a music service — like Spotify — they wouldn’t get my money. Even if it’s the better music…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That is not implied anywhere? The copy clears says internet users and provides concrete sources for the claim. How would you word it differently?
The obvious implication of putting that on a pricing page is that the average internet user accurately represents the average Kagi user. I have no idea if that's true or not, but if it isn't, then there isn't really a way to "word it differently" - including the information at all is misleading.
Are you saying that the average Kagi user, who is an internet power user doing far more than 4 searches a day, is going to be misled into believing they are an average internet user and that they really only do 4 searches a day?
Internet is I guess, next after a working computer with a working dev environment, the thing that makes most difference for many of us developers.
For me it has value in two different ways:
1. time saved by arriving at the correct answer quicker and not waste a lot of time trying to refine my search to the point where even Google cannot misunderstand it. If your relationship with Google is better, more power to you.
2. I am a happier man as a result of not having to fight my search engines day in and day out.
I also notice that unlike a number of others who like me feel they use search a lot, I don't get close to the quotas.
I guess one thing I might do differently (based on years of frustration with Google and DDG) is I take something like a depth-first approach based on my first search:
- Using Tree Style Tabs I open every result on the first page that looks relevant in a new tree (ctrl-click to open in new tab, nesting is automatic)
- I then look at each of them, ctrl-clicking every link that looks relevant, recursively
This works for me and I have been doing it for years. One nice side effect is it gives me a permanent somewhat organized tree of most of the most relevant docs. In some cases I even select such trees and (with the help of another extension) export them as nested links in markdown in rhe hope that I can use as a more permant table of contents for the topic.
https://kagi.com/pricing?plan=individual I knew Kagi is paid but I didn't know they had a limit on how many searches you can perform, which is also rather low. But what I really didn't like is how dishonest they are. The lowest tier costs $5 and includes 200 searches per month. That is 6.66 per day! But they say "Includes enough searches for 99% of internet users" because "The average person searches Google three or…
(Kagi founder here) You are correct in saying that almost all current Kagi users are in the other 1% category (tech savvy professionals who search a lot). But this plan is not meant for then. This plan is literally made for the 99% of all users who search the web 2-3 times a day, as the statistics show. We would like Kagi to have much broader adoption outside the HN crowd, and a low price plan is essential. How would…
I don't necessarily agree it's dishonest, but I think it's a bit weird to have a pricing tier than effectively doesn't work for anyone who would pay for the service.
As you said, almost all Kagi users are not in this 99% of users. Having a plan that caters to these users probably doesn't benefit many people in that group because they won't pay for search, but for users who would pay for search they might see that tier and feel that the quotas are stingy and they're being forced up the pricing tiers for behaviour that to them feels normal.
I don't know what your subscriber base looks like, but as an armchair spectator... I'd probably drop the $5/m tier and then emphasise that the "Professional" tier comes with "10x the number of searches that an average internet user makes", or whatever the multiplier actually is.
Also it would probably go some way towards assuaging fears of running out of searches if unused searches rolled over month to month. This tends to feel fairer in general.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Your privacy can't be retroactively taken: Kagi does not store your search history. The only search history you have is local, your own web browser.
I was interested in kagi, but it's not private at all. Your search term is right in the url, meaning the nsa can monitor your search terms. As an intellectually curious person, I search for things I shouldn't. I don't care if someone sees my local history, but I don't want to get put on a watch list for searching for production techniques for Compound B.
The reason some privacy oriented sites hide it is because of local snooping on your end point, i.e. if someone has access to your device when you are not there and can look through your logs and by extension search logs.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I do think that some aspects of the UX encourage billing superfluous searches and that, on a purely financial level, Kagi is dis-incentivised from improving this. Kagi is selling searches at cost, and we make money on subscriptions. Making a suboptimal UX id definitely not what we are doing, as people pay us for UX to be optimal. You point out some valid use-cases there and the reason we haven't addressed them so f…
Mmh, so your excuse for using dark patterns that are designed to overcharge users is that not enough of your users have noticed and complained? Are your users supposed to be UX experts?
My "excuse" for some of these things not being fixed is that they have low perceived impact in practice and/or lack of resources to address all issues at once (hence roadmap).