Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Fair Pricing

kagi.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

471–480 of 512 posts

Re: Fair Pricing

#471

Post by dewey »

ajyey wrote: post #464
a12k wrote: post #344

I am hyper aggressive about cutting monthly services. If I don’t feel I am getting value, or can get the value from somewhere else with a little more work, I cut it. For example I would never, ever pay for YouTube Premium. This has led to a pretty disciplined set of monthly services and low cost. Kagi though is one of the most useful services I have and goes way above and beyond this bar, so keep it around. To ape so…

I use YouTube every day of my life and gladly pay premium. It costs money to host and serve the insane amount of video YouTube provides. To each his own

Same, it’s my most used streaming service and it also feels good to support creators a little bit while also not having ads on my TV / app where ad blocking is harder.

Re: Fair Pricing

#472

Post by scarface_74 »

ethbr1 wrote: post #336
joseda-hg wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a separate cash flow problem on doing this, a big chuck of the expected revenue comes from people that setup the subscription and forget about it I tend to care lot less on keeping something like dropout even if I don't use it all the time (I like to think I contribute keeping it afloat, and watch it whenever), but I cancel other subscriptions a lot more aggresively (I've unsubbed/resubbed to Gamepass plenty…

It's an interesting point, because it gets to when streaming services' content costs are paid. Are they upfront? Or do they pay per view royalties at the end of a streaming period? Or likely mix of both, varying by each piece of content terms? Hypothetically, if a streaming service structured most of their obligations in the form of post-view true-up's, they wouldn't have any problem doing this. And could make bank o…

Streaming services mostly pay for licensed content up front. That’s why video streaming is much more like a traditional tech company - high up front costs with very low marginal costs compared to streaming music companies where their costs stream linearly with their revenues

Re: Fair Pricing

#473

Post by scarface_74 »

huhtenberg wrote: post #271
BossingAround wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the streaming services did this, I'd probably have pretty much all of them. Then, instead of paying monthly, you essentially have a tab open with everyone, and you pay for whatever you stream. Indeed, this would make me way less annoyed at the thousand and one streaming services popping up like mushrooms after a rainy day.

It's a very slippery path towards per-watch pricing with "rent this episode for just $0.99"... and that will be horrible.

Digital rentals for movies have been a thing since 2006 with the first video iPod and still is. Apple tried that with TV shows. But no one wanted it.

Re: Fair Pricing

#474

Post by scarface_74 »

JTyQZSnP3cQGa8B wrote: post #133
ant6n wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I dunno. The thing is, Kagi isn’t really that much better than Google. When they still had a free tier, I tried it every once in a while, and it quickly wastes a lot of searches even while just entering queries, and then the chance to find something better than Google is mediocre. Perhaps a prepaid model might make more sense, especially if it’s designed not to blow through queries quickly and transparent about how m…

I have the opposite experience: I use Kagi a hundred times a day with always relevant results while the GPTs always hallucinate random crap. I guess it depends on how you search.

Do you pay for ChatGPT with built in web search? I’ve been paying for ChatGPT for two years. I just started using the ChatGPT extension for Chrome for search and it is so much better than Chrome.

Re: Fair Pricing

#475

Post by mystified5016 »

Is there any concern that this results in a negative feedback loop of "oh, I better not use Kagi for this one random thing, it'll cost a whole month's subscription"?

Maybe a threshold of a dozen searches or so before the subscription fee kicks in.

Re: Fair Pricing

#476

Post by stevage »

It seems "fair" but, if they even make a single search in that month, you charge them the full monthly fee.

Real "fair" pricing just charges per request, and has the per-request pricing progressively go down as they reach various thresholds. Preferably with a free tier.

Re: Fair Pricing

#478

Post by addaon »

mystified5016 wrote: post #403
vinhcognito wrote: post #258

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I honestly can't imagine Kagi being worse than Google. At minimum, Kagi lets me derank and ban domains I don't like.

I haven't seen Pinterest in my search results for years and honestly that alone is worth the price of admission. If I get a bad result from an ai slop blog, I can permanently ban it. I think that Kagi aggregates this user feedback to globally downrank some sites, but I might be wrong.

> If I get a bad result from an ai slop blog, I can permanently ban it. I think that Kagi aggregates this user feedback to globally downrank some sites, but I might be wrong.

I agree this is a critical feature, but uBlacklist does this with Google for free. Without uBlacklist I'd gladly pay $10/month just to have "Google search without Pinterest results," but fortunately that's not required.

Re: Fair Pricing

#480

Post by shermozle »

ajdude wrote: post #86

Unfortunately, I will never be able to take advantage of this policy, For the very reason that I have kagi Set as my exclusive search engine on every single device that I own, And there's no way that I could go even a Day, let alone a month, without using this fantastic service. Keep up the good work guys!

Yeah was thinking just this. Looks like I do 600-900 searches a month with Kagi!
Post reply on HN