4 ms·

I've just tried brave search and it does seem to be a good product actually - my only concern with all these providers is what is the monetisation strategy will

by Closi 5y ago

I've just tried brave search and it does seem to be a good product actually - my only concern with all these providers is what is the monetisation strategy will be (Brave has called out ads, but it's not in their product at the moment). Looking at Brave's monetisation strategy for their browser it seems pretty shady (effectively steal the revenue from site owners for referral links and replace the websites ads with their own ads). They haven't tried monetising search yet so - Brave if you are reading this - please please please choose a different monetisation strategy and use the opportunity to be different to Google! I would love a company like DuckDuckGo or Brave to offer a paid tier where I can just subscribe to an ad-free search engine (I would love Google to offer a 'Google Premium' with this, but let's be real that's not happening!). i.e. If you are competing with Google by releasing a free search engine with Ads, you have to provide better search results with Ads mixed in than Google which will be tough. If you found a monetisation strategy that didn't involve Ads, theoretically it should be easier to offer a better quality search result and better quality product than Google (because you are actually focussing on delivering the best quality results rather than the right mix of good-results and Ads to optimise revenue).

m0zg 5y ago
So would I. I'd gladly and voluntarily pay, say, $10/mo for a family subscription, paid with crypto. I'm not sure why they aren't offering that.
- Closi 5y ago
  Yeah, I don't see what the downside is either. For companies - It doesn't sound too hard to implement and seems like it would be a good source of revenue. Plus paying subscribers will be more 'loyal' in terms of moving their searches across. For users - you get more of a guarantee that the companies statements about privacy and impartiality are true, because there is less incentive for them to break that.
  - m0zg 5y ago
    Especially considering that crypto is already built into their browser.
BrendanEich 5y ago
Why do you post false stuff like "replace the website ads with their own ads"? We never did that and would not unless website were partnered and getting 70% of the gross. The affiliate link autocomplete for finance.{us, com} was a bug and fixed immediately. Browsers other than Brave have a hard time surviving without being captured by a search or other big-tech power. We're the only user-first, private browser with opt-in revenue sharing.
- BrendanEich 5y ago
  Binance (spellcorrekt turned it into “finance”).
- Closi 5y ago
  I might be confused, but was the below article just false? If so you should probably ask them to put a correction on it. https://www.computerworld.com/article/3284076/brave-browser-begins-controversial-ad-repeal-and-replace-tests.html https://www.computerworld.com/article/3284076/brave-browser-... https://www.computerworld.com/article/3292619/the-brave-browser-basics-what-it-does-how-it-differs-from-rivals.html https://www.computerworld.com/article/3292619/the-brave-brow... These seem pretty cut-and-dry, but if they are false they should definitely retract. > We're the only user-first, private browser with opt-in revenue sharing. I personally don't want revenue sharing - I just want the first browser that is user-first and private. The issue with me being advertised to isnt that I want a cut of the revenue, it's that I don't want to be advertised to. That's the whole point of my post - if you need revenue just charge me for it. Why can't we just have a search company that will just let me pay them money in a straightforward 1950's-style transaction. All I'm saying is - Please don't try to beat Google Search at being Google Search with the same ads-in-search model - you have such a great opportunity, and clearly the experience, to do something different! I personally hope you choose a different path that allows you to have a better ad-free product. Maybe you will succeed going down the ad-route, but I personally want a different option to having my results stuffed with ads, rather than just a new (either better or worse) Google. As soon as you do a paid version of search I'll be a subscriber, as long as there is a guarantee that it is privacy-preserving, will never have ads, is a sensible price and isn't linked to some weird crypto stuff.

by Closi 5y ago

m0zg 5y ago

So would I. I'd gladly and voluntarily pay, say, $10/mo for a family subscription, paid with crypto. I'm not sure why they aren't offering that.

Closi 5y ago
Yeah, I don't see what the downside is either. For companies - It doesn't sound too hard to implement and seems like it would be a good source of revenue. Plus paying subscribers will be more 'loyal' in terms of moving their searches across. For users - you get more of a guarantee that the companies statements about privacy and impartiality are true, because there is less incentive for them to break that.
- m0zg 5y ago
  Especially considering that crypto is already built into their browser.

BrendanEich 5y ago

Why do you post false stuff like "replace the website ads with their own ads"? We never did that and would not unless website were partnered and getting 70% of the gross. The affiliate link autocomplete for finance.{us, com} was a bug and fixed immediately. Browsers other than Brave have a hard time surviving without being captured by a search or other big-tech power. We're the only user-first, private browser with opt-in revenue sharing.

BrendanEich 5y ago
Binance (spellcorrekt turned it into “finance”).
Closi 5y ago
I might be confused, but was the below article just false? If so you should probably ask them to put a correction on it. https://www.computerworld.com/article/3284076/brave-browser-begins-controversial-ad-repeal-and-replace-tests.html https://www.computerworld.com/article/3284076/brave-browser-... https://www.computerworld.com/article/3292619/the-brave-browser-basics-what-it-does-how-it-differs-from-rivals.html https://www.computerworld.com/article/3292619/the-brave-brow... These seem pretty cut-and-dry, but if they are false they should definitely retract. > We're the only user-first, private browser with opt-in revenue sharing. I personally don't want revenue sharing - I just want the first browser that is user-first and private. The issue with me being advertised to isnt that I want a cut of the revenue, it's that I don't want to be advertised to. That's the whole point of my post - if you need revenue just charge me for it. Why can't we just have a search company that will just let me pay them money in a straightforward 1950's-style transaction. All I'm saying is - Please don't try to beat Google Search at being Google Search with the same ads-in-search model - you have such a great opportunity, and clearly the experience, to do something different! I personally hope you choose a different path that allows you to have a better ad-free product. Maybe you will succeed going down the ad-route, but I personally want a different option to having my results stuffed with ads, rather than just a new (either better or worse) Google. As soon as you do a paid version of search I'll be a subscriber, as long as there is a guarantee that it is privacy-preserving, will never have ads, is a sensible price and isn't linked to some weird crypto stuff.