3 ms·
If you're running a search engine maybe. But everyday people are used to getting 80% answers by search engines, I don't think many would pay for something that
by riffraff 6y ago
If you're running a search engine maybe.
But everyday people are used to getting 80% answers by search engines, I don't think many would pay for something that is "like google, but a bit better".
This seems the be current issue for many things that we used to pay for (dictionaries, encyclopaedias, newspapers, etc), and I'm not sure this would be different.
- rytill 6y agoI would easily pay money for something that is like Google, but a bit better.
- cambalache 6y agoI wont
- sktguha 6y agogoogle's majority revenue is from search. So bit better than google, particularly if it is integrated into bing (as microsoft has invested in openAI) , and allows bing to capture market share from google, would be really lucrative
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- tambourine_man 6y ago> "like google, but a bit better" For simple queries like “who was the president of country X in YYYY” it’s probably just a bit better (if cached, of course, Google search is wicked fast). But for more complex queries, Google is still remarkably dumb. Or downright insolent, ignoring my verbatim selection or quoted terms. I’d pay good money for scarily smart search and a “grep for the web” service, that included JSON, CSS, JavaScript, comments, whatever. A toggle button for dumb/smart search