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

481–490 of 512 posts

Re: Fair Pricing

#481

Post by snowe2010 »

sillyfluke wrote: post #149
lostlogin wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I get better results. I block the shit (a user preference with some good easy options), I up rank my favourites and pin Wikipedia. I’m happily paying for a family plan.

Oh yeah, in this political climate I'm definitely going to voluntarily tie my and my children's search results to my credit card. As long as people continue to gush about how amazing this service is, I'm going to gush about how ridiculuous this proposition is.

Your position is baffling. You think that Google, who maintains every search you’ve ever made, including correlating them across every Gmail account you have, and who routinely provides this search data to authorities, as well as sells access to this data is somehow more safe to use than a company based in Europe, who are funded off of a subscription model, whom are not VC funded even though you claim that, and who’s entire sales strategy is that they don’t sell your data or even retain it.

Your position is completely devoid of logic.

Re: Fair Pricing

#482

Post by user568439 »

yreg wrote: post #111
dirkc wrote: post #75

This makes sense, if someone isn't using your service for a month, chances are good that they are going to cancel soon. Maybe they'll keep on paying for another few months, but if they're not using it, they're not getting any value from it. So rather than getting them to cancel, pause their subscription. You don't have to deal with cancellations, and if/when the user does return, you are one step further than you wou…

If the streaming services did this, I would probably have a lot more of them.

Yes a lot of people does this manually. But the services predate on the people that is too busy or lazy to unsubscribe and I'm afraid they are a much larger group.

Re: Fair Pricing

#483

Post by dizhn »

promiseofbeans wrote: post #327
g_p wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You might find Privacy Pass of interest then - https://help.kagi.com/kagi/privacy/privacy-pass.html It should be out in the next day or so.

Ooh this is interesting. Theoretically these could still be associated with my account right? Since you need to use my session token to generate these privacy tokens. Is there a technical explainer somewhere with instructions for setting this up without a web extension? Edit: Looking into it, it seems like this uses the same mechanism for tokens as Cloudflare's turnstile system: https://privacypass.github.io/ or for…

This is very exciting new stuff. I am sure it'll find a million other uses.

Re: Fair Pricing

#484

Post by sillyfluke »

snowe2010 wrote: post #481
sillyfluke wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh yeah, in this political climate I'm definitely going to voluntarily tie my and my children's search results to my credit card. As long as people continue to gush about how amazing this service is, I'm going to gush about how ridiculuous this proposition is.

Your position is baffling. You think that Google, who maintains every search you’ve ever made, including correlating them across every Gmail account you have, and who routinely provides this search data to authorities, as well as sells access to this data is somehow more safe to use than a company based in Europe, who are funded off of a subscription model, whom are not VC funded even though you claim that, and who’s…

Nothing in the comment you're responding to says anything about me using Google search or Gmail. In other comments I'm simple comparing the use case of using google search with an obfuscated connection and without ever signing into a google account with the use case of having to sign into Kagi. In that respect, I have no idea what you're talking about. If you're responding to another comment of mine please respond to that comment so I can better understand your point.

Re: Fair Pricing

#485

Post by sillyfluke »

ethbr1 wrote: post #454
sillyfluke wrote: post #409

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Again, you seem to be missing the point here. Those "billions of user records" are the users who thought they were not being tracked by using incognito mode. All the other users who didn't care about being tracked one way or the other are irrelevant to the use case we're discussing.

Your point seems to be arguing in favor of how a company whose core business product is tracking... makes you more comfortable you're not being tracked than an alternative with a subscription model?

>Your point seems to be arguing in favor of how a company whose core business product is tracking

I'm doing no such thing. I'm merely pointing out that a user still has tools in their disposal to prevent a company whose core business is tracking from tracking them as long as said company does not require the user to sign in with PII info.

When you sign in with Kagi, your only protection is to "trust them". Kagi's next move should be to allow mail-in-cash for account activation to back up their privacy intent if they require user sign-in, like some other privacy-focused services allow.

Re: Fair Pricing

#486

Post by jcul »

vincnetas wrote: post #25

Just recently i was actually thinking about this pricing approach for netflix, apple arcade or whatever else. Basically i use it so rarely that i could just subscribe when i want to watch anything, and unsubscribe immediately. This will enable subscription till end of billing period (one month). Then when i want o watch anything again then i will repeat again. And now kagi has implemented exactly this but automated f…

Yeah I do this for some services, subscribe and cancel immediately so I don't forget. It works quite well.

Re: Fair Pricing

#487

Post by yreg »

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.

Give it a reasonable enough price (0.99 per episode is too expensive) and add a monthly cap (can be a bit higher than the current subscription) and you've got me as a customer.

Re: Fair Pricing

#488

Post by larrybolt »

This feels like an example of a company trying to do the "right thing" and deciding there must be a way to monetize that, regarding what everyone (even the web) is telling them.

Imagine the balance of revenue from non-returning users (think fitness) vs very heavy users, and finding a way to keep both parties happy. And the implications it has (those "paused" users still count towards "onboarded" users).

Major props Kagi team, or who-ever pushed this idea!

Re: Fair Pricing

#489

Post by merlinnn »

verdverm wrote: post #446
dirkc wrote: post #75

This makes sense, if someone isn't using your service for a month, chances are good that they are going to cancel soon. Maybe they'll keep on paying for another few months, but if they're not using it, they're not getting any value from it. So rather than getting them to cancel, pause their subscription. You don't have to deal with cancellations, and if/when the user does return, you are one step further than you wou…

I'd prefer a pay-as-you-go / per API call / search pricing model... to something that if I use it just once, I pay full price for a month. Same rationale for AI in my IDE, I'm waiting for the pricing models to change

The downside is that price per unit will increase as minimum unit size goes down. You're essentially buying at a "retail" price whereas the monthly bundle is wholesale.

But the tradeoff would be worth it for sparsely used applications.

Re: Fair Pricing

#490

Post by bugtodiffer »

ykonstant wrote: post #263
bugtodiffer wrote: post #101

Maybe introduce a security team instead of building a browser and email on top of your search

Care to elaborate? Comments like this are not helpful for people outside of whichever loop you are in, and people in the loop already know what you are alluding to.

They have 0 people knowing security stuff, but think they are capable of writing a browser or email service.
Post reply on HN