3 ms·

I get that it’s hard, but figure it out. Amazon doesn’t make me subscribe and I can buy 100 hours and use them over 10 years for all they care. I’ve had monthl

I get that it’s hard, but figure it out. Amazon doesn’t make me subscribe and I can buy 100 hours and use them over 10 years for all they care. I’ve had monthly bills that are a penny from glacier. I don’t think this pricing is because it’s hard on Kagi. I think it’s a dark pattern that once people subscribe they just autopay forever. My dad subscribed to dial up aol until last year. He hasn’t had a phone line for 15 years. You think kagi is going to not charge people if they do zero searches? They’ve already made it a finite resource by charging $5/month for 300 searches. I’m already rationing. They’re just saying it’s $5 if you do 1 or 300. There’s already friction. But friction to dark pattern you into paying more. I mean it’s their prerogative and they can charge whatever they want. I just don’t want another monthly fee. I’d rather just pay once and be done. Sell search tokens or something.

dbrueck 3y ago
Oh, I'm not defending their approach per se - I don't want another subscription at that price point either - I'm just saying that it's not as simple as it appears on the surface because the alternate approach has a direct impact on the behavior of a good chunk of the user base, in a way that's not really good for the business or the users. I'd argue that in many cases - including this one - the issue with subscriptions is simply that they are overpriced from the customer's perspective. Reasons for this could be greed, a desire to get to a self-sufficient revenue point too early, worrying about the handful of users that will abuse any sort of unlimited plan. From the customer's perspective, if the cost-vs-benefits don't feel right, then they'll complain about a subscription, but it's not /really/ the main problem in most cases. The most "fair" plan for e.g. Netflix would be if I paid for each thing I watch, but that is effectively a "tax" on usage and negatively affects my usage patterns (from both my perspective and theirs). For example, I'd be super hesitant to browse and try out stuff I might not like. On the flip side, Netflix has now passed 15USD/mo and while it's not a huge chunk of change, I don't feel like I get 15 dollars of value out of it, so I'm thinking of cancelling. If the subscription was an absurdly low 1USD/mo, I wouldn't care about the subscription at all. Kagi's situation is unfortunate for them because they are trying to get people to pay for something that we normally think of as free, so they probably need to lower the price point, at least for now. > Amazon doesn’t make me subscribe and I can buy 100 hours and use them over 10 years for all they care Well, sure, getting a customer's money up front for something intangible that they may never use and whose cost to you trends towards zero anyway is something they're happy to sell you. :)
wpm 3y ago
A simple paygo model with monthly caps at the same prices as the current tiers could work. If I search five times a month, charge me $0.05 a search. If I search 2000 times, charge me $10. If I search 2001 times, just charge me ten dollars. Still no need to think about it, no need to lock into a subscription, but you also don’t have to worry about blowing your credit card up if you have a research paper due or something. Of course, no one does this because you’re right, it’s purely a dark pattern.
- waveBidder 3y ago
  .

dbrueck 3y ago

Oh, I'm not defending their approach per se - I don't want another subscription at that price point either - I'm just saying that it's not as simple as it appears on the surface because the alternate approach has a direct impact on the behavior of a good chunk of the user base, in a way that's not really good for the business or the users. I'd argue that in many cases - including this one - the issue with subscriptions is simply that they are overpriced from the customer's perspective. Reasons for this could be greed, a desire to get to a self-sufficient revenue point too early, worrying about the handful of users that will abuse any sort of unlimited plan. From the customer's perspective, if the cost-vs-benefits don't feel right, then they'll complain about a subscription, but it's not /really/ the main problem in most cases. The most "fair" plan for e.g. Netflix would be if I paid for each thing I watch, but that is effectively a "tax" on usage and negatively affects my usage patterns (from both my perspective and theirs). For example, I'd be super hesitant to browse and try out stuff I might not like. On the flip side, Netflix has now passed 15USD/mo and while it's not a huge chunk of change, I don't feel like I get 15 dollars of value out of it, so I'm thinking of cancelling. If the subscription was an absurdly low 1USD/mo, I wouldn't care about the subscription at all. Kagi's situation is unfortunate for them because they are trying to get people to pay for something that we normally think of as free, so they probably need to lower the price point, at least for now. > Amazon doesn’t make me subscribe and I can buy 100 hours and use them over 10 years for all they care Well, sure, getting a customer's money up front for something intangible that they may never use and whose cost to you trends towards zero anyway is something they're happy to sell you. :)

wpm 3y ago

A simple paygo model with monthly caps at the same prices as the current tiers could work. If I search five times a month, charge me $0.05 a search. If I search 2000 times, charge me $10. If I search 2001 times, just charge me ten dollars. Still no need to think about it, no need to lock into a subscription, but you also don’t have to worry about blowing your credit card up if you have a research paper due or something. Of course, no one does this because you’re right, it’s purely a dark pattern.

waveBidder 3y ago
.