3 ms·
Its good and they deserve credit for it. Let me be clear on that. Now, wouldnt it be even better to implement usage based pricing with a maximum that's equal t
by nonethewiser 2y ago
Its good and they deserve credit for it. Let me be clear on that.
Now, wouldnt it be even better to implement usage based pricing with a maximum that's equal to the current subscription?
I dont know the Kagi details. Say you pay 10/month and each search is $0.02. You pay max(search_count * 0.02, 10).
I guess the logic is much simpler for their current system. It's 10/month, period. Then if you didnt search anything you get a refund. Instead of tracking and calculating usage.
However, usage pricing should be more enticing for casual users. With the statement refund for 0 use, there is now an incentive for infrequent users to NOT to use the product.
- pseudocomposer 2y agoI think metered pricing makes sense for a service that's $10/mo (which the base Kagi w/ AI features is). However, Kagi search unlimited is $5/mo. And, especially because of the whole "payment providers taking their cut" thing, I'd argue for services that are $5/mo or under, metered pricing doesn't really make sense. Finally, I'd argue that this approach has other advantages over metering, even for higher-cost services: * It's easier for devs to implement. Just one search needs to be recorded a month for an audit trail, rather than all search history. * Keeping a search history for users is not needed at all, really (or, again, at most, one search per month). It's much better for user privacy. * Most countries/states would have much more luck passing legislation forcing companies to implement this than metering, as well as enforcing it.