3 ms·

I would like to pay for web search, but per usage. I hate subscriptions because they are a pain to keep track of and I end up paying for stuff I don’t use, like

I would like to pay for web search, but per usage. I hate subscriptions because they are a pain to keep track of and I end up paying for stuff I don’t use, like Netflix.

globular-toast 6y ago
Definitely. I'd also love to have the busking model applied to music and videos online. I block all ads, including on Youtube, because they are annoying. But I'm often watching a video or listening to a track (like I am right now) where I would definitely click a button that donates 10p. Sometimes I'd click it multiple times. Youtube has the technology to identifier the rights holders for music and videos so this should easily be possible. I first heard this idea from Richard Stallman many years ago.
- dewey 6y ago
  This was tried multiple times but it never took off. One that was kinda widespread at least in the Germany blog / podcast scene was: https://flattr.com https://flattr.com I think at some point they changed the way it works and it fizzled out. I barely see it any more. For YouTube: Maybe YouTube Premium is what you need then? No ads and you are supporting the creators you are watching.
  - globular-toast 6y ago
    No because Youtube Premium is a subscription model and I don't want to pay for anything I don't care for which is what would happen if I pay into a big pot. Flattr also follows the subscription model. I want the busking model. I provide my payment details but not a penny is spent until I click the button for a specific video/channel/piece. The key is low friction. It can't be some third party thing where you need to click away. It needs to be right there where you choose what to watch/listen to.
smnrchrds 6y ago
Per usage pricing will result in misaligned incentives. It will be in the interest of the search engine provider to provide worse results, so you have to make multiple searches and some trial and errors with keywords until you get the result you were looking for. In the end, the company notices that when they make improvements to their algorithms, their revenue goes down. So they stop making improvements.
- Closi 6y ago
  Counterpoint: If they gave me terrible results I would just go to another service. If it's pay-per-search there is zero friction for me to go to another provider. It's probably not a practical charging mechanism, but it's an interesting thought. I also don't believe a monthly charging subscription is the right model but this is a tough one to get right.
  - smnrchrds 6y ago
    > Counterpoint: If they gave me terrible results I would just go to another service. There would be an optimum point where the results are good enough that people won't leave the service en masse, but bad enough that they spend way more than necessary on it. The optimum point is where the profits will be maximized for the search provider. Thanks to the advances is AI/ML/Data Science methods and tools, a savvy company will find this point and stays there until the point moves.
zepearl 6y ago
In my case I'm associating this service more to a news-service (e.g. arstechnica.com, golem.de) => I had no problems paying for their general subscription (3-5$/month) even if I don't ever read all their articles => I would most probably handle a search-engine the same way (and in this specific case limitations like e.g. max 10'000 search queries per month when using a "basic"-subscription would be ok for me).

I would like to pay for web search, but per usage. I hate subscriptions because they are a pain to keep track of and I end up paying for stuff I don’t use, like Netflix.

globular-toast 6y ago

Definitely. I'd also love to have the busking model applied to music and videos online. I block all ads, including on Youtube, because they are annoying. But I'm often watching a video or listening to a track (like I am right now) where I would definitely click a button that donates 10p. Sometimes I'd click it multiple times. Youtube has the technology to identifier the rights holders for music and videos so this should easily be possible. I first heard this idea from Richard Stallman many years ago.

dewey 6y ago
This was tried multiple times but it never took off. One that was kinda widespread at least in the Germany blog / podcast scene was: https://flattr.com https://flattr.com I think at some point they changed the way it works and it fizzled out. I barely see it any more. For YouTube: Maybe YouTube Premium is what you need then? No ads and you are supporting the creators you are watching.
- globular-toast 6y ago
  No because Youtube Premium is a subscription model and I don't want to pay for anything I don't care for which is what would happen if I pay into a big pot. Flattr also follows the subscription model. I want the busking model. I provide my payment details but not a penny is spent until I click the button for a specific video/channel/piece. The key is low friction. It can't be some third party thing where you need to click away. It needs to be right there where you choose what to watch/listen to.

smnrchrds 6y ago

Per usage pricing will result in misaligned incentives. It will be in the interest of the search engine provider to provide worse results, so you have to make multiple searches and some trial and errors with keywords until you get the result you were looking for. In the end, the company notices that when they make improvements to their algorithms, their revenue goes down. So they stop making improvements.

Closi 6y ago
Counterpoint: If they gave me terrible results I would just go to another service. If it's pay-per-search there is zero friction for me to go to another provider. It's probably not a practical charging mechanism, but it's an interesting thought. I also don't believe a monthly charging subscription is the right model but this is a tough one to get right.
- smnrchrds 6y ago
  > Counterpoint: If they gave me terrible results I would just go to another service. There would be an optimum point where the results are good enough that people won't leave the service en masse, but bad enough that they spend way more than necessary on it. The optimum point is where the profits will be maximized for the search provider. Thanks to the advances is AI/ML/Data Science methods and tools, a savvy company will find this point and stays there until the point moves.

zepearl 6y ago

In my case I'm associating this service more to a news-service (e.g. arstechnica.com, golem.de) => I had no problems paying for their general subscription (3-5$/month) even if I don't ever read all their articles => I would most probably handle a search-engine the same way (and in this specific case limitations like e.g. max 10'000 search queries per month when using a "basic"-subscription would be ok for me).