3 ms·

perplexity already has a subscription plan...

by behnamoh 2y ago

jsheard 2y ago
So does OpenAI, but they're still burning billions of dollars every year. Ads are another way to stem the bleeding.
- tomrod 2y ago
  Ads are myopic and signal lack of ability by a company to be viable.
  - lmm 2y ago
    Google is the world's fourth most valuable company.
    - asdff 2y ago
      And phillip morris was one of the best performing stocks for nearly a century. past performance in the market is not always indicative of strong collective benefits.
      - relativ575 2y ago
        Google's revenue for 2023 was $307.394B, a 8.68% increase from 2022. 2022 was $282.836B, a 9.78% increase from 2021. 2021 was $257.637B, a 41.15% increase from 2020. Doesn't sound like just past glory. https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/GOOG/alphabet/revenue https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/GOOG/alphabet/reve...
      - lmm 2y ago
        I'm not saying they're a force for good. But they're more than viable as a company.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - tomrod 2y ago
      I agree. Society is sick due to the exploitative nature of Google and other ad-tech companies in relation to ad-tech. They could choose to be viable in other ways.
  - relativ575 2y ago
    Really? Ad is the most popular business model for Internet businesses. Any you saying none of those companies is viable?
    - tomrod 2y ago
      That's correct. Turn off the ads (which is visual and aural pollution in 99.99999% of cases) and said company is literally not viable. We accept ads because we're conditioned to, not because they represent a real business. The vast majority of advertising spend is inefficient and wasteful in terms of ROI. Most advertising in the space show substantially low statistical power, in effect being unable to identify an effect from random noise.[0] This means ROI measures are normally bunk. Ad-supported businesses are subject wholly to the whims of unrelated companies and people outside their target client base. We worry about AI slop, rightfully, yet do little to nothing to stop the memetic, exploitative mind virus advertising (and adtech especially) is. Recommended reading: Existence, David Brin [0] https://academic.oup.com/qje/article-abstract/130/4/1941/1914592 https://academic.oup.com/qje/article-abstract/130/4/1941/191...
  - 1vuio0pswjnm7 2y ago
    Perhaps what parent means is viable _without relying on ads_. When Google was announced in the early 1990s the founders said they wanted to provide a search engine for the academnic realm, transparent and free from the influence of advertising. Google's original "business plan" was to license their search engine to corporations. Obviously that did not work. Netscape had a similar plan for its Navigator web browser. No doubt some of these "AI" companies believe they can license to companies as a viable business. Meanwhile, they may end up like Netscape. If ads are and always were a viable "business model" then why do these companies try to pursue licensing first. Perhaps some myopia is created by mesmerising effects of certain selected companies, e.g., Google, that have operated their "ads business" free from meaningful competition or regulation, leading to immense growth and market domination, the later maintained long-term by anticompetitive behaviour.
BadHumans 2y ago
No one pays for things but very few people are going to quit because of ads. Having an ad-supported tier almost always makes the most sense.
snet0 2y ago
Unfortunately, people need to actually subscribe to the subscription plan for it to make any money.
formerlurker 2y ago
Perplexity’s business model is still following the Google model of selling people to advertisers. The only LLM service with privacy protection I found so far is Claude. If I am paying for a subscription I would expect privacy to be included. How come people do not care?

perplexity already has a subscription plan...

jsheard 2y ago

So does OpenAI, but they're still burning billions of dollars every year. Ads are another way to stem the bleeding.

tomrod 2y ago
Ads are myopic and signal lack of ability by a company to be viable.
- lmm 2y ago
  Google is the world's fourth most valuable company.
  - asdff 2y ago
    And phillip morris was one of the best performing stocks for nearly a century. past performance in the market is not always indicative of strong collective benefits.
    - relativ575 2y ago
      Google's revenue for 2023 was $307.394B, a 8.68% increase from 2022. 2022 was $282.836B, a 9.78% increase from 2021. 2021 was $257.637B, a 41.15% increase from 2020. Doesn't sound like just past glory. https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/GOOG/alphabet/revenue https://www.macrotrends.net/stocks/charts/GOOG/alphabet/reve...
    - lmm 2y ago
      I'm not saying they're a force for good. But they're more than viable as a company.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - tomrod 2y ago
    I agree. Society is sick due to the exploitative nature of Google and other ad-tech companies in relation to ad-tech. They could choose to be viable in other ways.
- relativ575 2y ago
  Really? Ad is the most popular business model for Internet businesses. Any you saying none of those companies is viable?
  - tomrod 2y ago
    That's correct. Turn off the ads (which is visual and aural pollution in 99.99999% of cases) and said company is literally not viable. We accept ads because we're conditioned to, not because they represent a real business. The vast majority of advertising spend is inefficient and wasteful in terms of ROI. Most advertising in the space show substantially low statistical power, in effect being unable to identify an effect from random noise.[0] This means ROI measures are normally bunk. Ad-supported businesses are subject wholly to the whims of unrelated companies and people outside their target client base. We worry about AI slop, rightfully, yet do little to nothing to stop the memetic, exploitative mind virus advertising (and adtech especially) is. Recommended reading: Existence, David Brin [0] https://academic.oup.com/qje/article-abstract/130/4/1941/1914592 https://academic.oup.com/qje/article-abstract/130/4/1941/191...
- 1vuio0pswjnm7 2y ago
  Perhaps what parent means is viable _without relying on ads_. When Google was announced in the early 1990s the founders said they wanted to provide a search engine for the academnic realm, transparent and free from the influence of advertising. Google's original "business plan" was to license their search engine to corporations. Obviously that did not work. Netscape had a similar plan for its Navigator web browser. No doubt some of these "AI" companies believe they can license to companies as a viable business. Meanwhile, they may end up like Netscape. If ads are and always were a viable "business model" then why do these companies try to pursue licensing first. Perhaps some myopia is created by mesmerising effects of certain selected companies, e.g., Google, that have operated their "ads business" free from meaningful competition or regulation, leading to immense growth and market domination, the later maintained long-term by anticompetitive behaviour.

BadHumans 2y ago

No one pays for things but very few people are going to quit because of ads. Having an ad-supported tier almost always makes the most sense.

snet0 2y ago

Unfortunately, people need to actually subscribe to the subscription plan for it to make any money.

formerlurker 2y ago

Perplexity’s business model is still following the Google model of selling people to advertisers. The only LLM service with privacy protection I found so far is Claude. If I am paying for a subscription I would expect privacy to be included. How come people do not care?