4 ms·

Isn't that basically the MO of every startup? * Offer something for free, with VC money. * Gain market share since you don't need to worry about profit. * Real

Isn't that basically the MO of every startup? * Offer something for free, with VC money. * Gain market share since you don't need to worry about profit. * Realise you need to make money, so start turning into the companies you stole market share from.

tagawa 10y ago
Just want to point out that although that may be a model for many startups, DuckDuckGo is already profitable through (non-tracking) advertising and affiliate revenue. More info: https://duck.co/help/company/advertising-and-affiliates https://duck.co/help/company/advertising-and-affiliates Disclaimer: DDG staff
- youdontknowtho 10y ago
  That's great news, and probably needs to be more widely known.
- unethical_ban 10y ago
  youdontknowtho is shadowbanned.
  - personjerry 10y ago
    No he isn't?
    - unethical_ban 10y ago
      Might have used the wrong term, but the above comment was dead earlier, and several of his other comments are dead despite not seeming to violate any rules.
- volatilitish 10y ago
  I don't want to be rude, but I don't think DuckDuckGo has actually taken much market share to worry about yet, so maybe it's not following the usual startup route.
  - dpcx 10y ago
    Does it matter if it's following the "usual startup route"? If it's profitable, and it hasn't compromised on it's values, then it's winning.
    - volatilitish 10y ago
      Maybe. It's not difficult to be profitable though. Servers are cheap. I don't think it's going to trouble Google though, which is a shame. We could do with some serious search competition.
- millamat 10y ago
  I think it's very, very reasonable to be skeptical of any claims about DDGs actual concern about privacy. Actions speak far louder than words. Gabe made his first few million by making a classmates.com clone that was the opposite of respectful about privacy. Those actions made clear that he has no ethical or moral stance regarding privacy, and that he will happily violate privacy for profit. Add to that the fact that he took venture funding. Venture funding aims for a maximized exit price, not a moral stance. The moral stance will disappear the moment your site gains meaningful traction. It's what Ayn Rand (one of your founder's favorte authors) would have wanted. DDG users who care about privacy are, to be blunt, laughably gullible. Your current business is pro-privacy because: 1) the search context creates sufficient value even without the personal target; and 2) the tech is a dumb layer on top of other tech, and it can't provide personalizaton. As such, yegg's pretending he cares about privacy... but he's just selling the limitations of his lousy tech as benefits. It's a PT Barnum move. As soon as the tech is better, the privacy will disappear.

tagawa 10y ago

Just want to point out that although that may be a model for many startups, DuckDuckGo is already profitable through (non-tracking) advertising and affiliate revenue. More info: https://duck.co/help/company/advertising-and-affiliates https://duck.co/help/company/advertising-and-affiliates Disclaimer: DDG staff

youdontknowtho 10y ago
That's great news, and probably needs to be more widely known.
unethical_ban 10y ago
youdontknowtho is shadowbanned.
- personjerry 10y ago
  No he isn't?
  - unethical_ban 10y ago
    Might have used the wrong term, but the above comment was dead earlier, and several of his other comments are dead despite not seeming to violate any rules.
volatilitish 10y ago
I don't want to be rude, but I don't think DuckDuckGo has actually taken much market share to worry about yet, so maybe it's not following the usual startup route.
- dpcx 10y ago
  Does it matter if it's following the "usual startup route"? If it's profitable, and it hasn't compromised on it's values, then it's winning.
  - volatilitish 10y ago
    Maybe. It's not difficult to be profitable though. Servers are cheap. I don't think it's going to trouble Google though, which is a shame. We could do with some serious search competition.
millamat 10y ago
I think it's very, very reasonable to be skeptical of any claims about DDGs actual concern about privacy. Actions speak far louder than words. Gabe made his first few million by making a classmates.com clone that was the opposite of respectful about privacy. Those actions made clear that he has no ethical or moral stance regarding privacy, and that he will happily violate privacy for profit. Add to that the fact that he took venture funding. Venture funding aims for a maximized exit price, not a moral stance. The moral stance will disappear the moment your site gains meaningful traction. It's what Ayn Rand (one of your founder's favorte authors) would have wanted. DDG users who care about privacy are, to be blunt, laughably gullible. Your current business is pro-privacy because: 1) the search context creates sufficient value even without the personal target; and 2) the tech is a dumb layer on top of other tech, and it can't provide personalizaton. As such, yegg's pretending he cares about privacy... but he's just selling the limitations of his lousy tech as benefits. It's a PT Barnum move. As soon as the tech is better, the privacy will disappear.