3 ms·

> Layer 3: Paid, subscription-based search Should actually be - Layer 3: Paid, ad-free, subscription-based search. (It's a subtle omission that indicates the d

> Layer 3: Paid, subscription-based search Should actually be - Layer 3: Paid, ad-free, subscription-based search. (It's a subtle omission that indicates the direction Kagi search will eventually take).

lostlogin 9mo ago
It does say ‘without selling your attention.’ This isn’t quite the same thing though. I hope you are wrong, if not… wow.
- dspillett 9mo ago
  TBH that sounds more creepy. It (sort of) rules out ads but not the stalking that is inherent in current adtech methods. I'm more bothered by the latter than the former.
decimalenough 9mo ago
Kagi has been pretty consistent about funding itself with paying users instead of ads. I, for one, am a paid user but would quit if there were ads injected, since not having them (and, more importantly, having result rankings corrupted by them) is the exact thing I'm paying for.
- canpan 9mo ago
  Another paying user here. Very happy with Kagi, but would cancel asap if there were ads. Don't mind paying more. I just don't want ads. But I cannot really imagine it, they would loose half their competitive advantage. (The other half being having good results) For me it would probably mean to build a search from scratch. For 90% of my search use cases it's pretty straightforward. I mostly visit the same sites..
- dmje 9mo ago
  Paid user and early adopter here - same, I think. I'm delighted with Kagi, but the thought of it riddled with ads makes me sad. My understanding is same as yours - this is an attempt at an entirely different business model - moving to ads would be totally contrary to what they're trying (or at least - to date - have been trying) to build. Really hope they don't go this way...!
shmeeed 9mo ago
I don't see how it's conductive to the underlying big stakes discussion if we start condemning Kagi over this omission instead of assuming good faith. It's just distracting from the real issue at hand that is Google's monopoly and the details of the rulings and their enforcement. Call me naive, but I imagine Kagi would be VERY hesitant to force ads on their users, given that such a step would risk alienating a major part of their customer base, as they're well aware. If they were secretly planning to to it somewhere down the road, they could just as well do it the usual and proven way and lie about it until they've build a sufficient moat, which they're not having right now. IMO, they have precious little to gain from hinting at it like this now. And even if it were the case that this omission was consciously about keeping a door open for such a change in business models, there's a whole lot of leeway in approaches that involve ads, apart from the 100% user-as-a-product way that Google went with. Given the high customizability of their search, they e.g. could give users the option to turn ads on or off. Some people (don't ask me who, but I keep being told they exist) don't mind being shown ads or might even desire them. I remember way back when the first Google ads were clearly labeled as such and stood visually apart from organic search results. I personally don't think it would mean the end of the world if Kagi did something similar - in a transparent way, and preferrably as an opt-in. But at this point it's all needless speculation in my view.
- walt_grata 9mo ago
  I don't know dude. Every time I've assumed good faith on my paying for something means ad free, I've been screwed by some asshole with an MBA getting into a leadership position high enough to push ads through. I'd rather it be explicit
  - shmeeed 9mo ago
    I get the point, we've all been burnt. But if you're not trusting anybody anyway, why would explicity in a non-binding blog post / press release soothe you? We're in the middle of an AI bubble propping up the whole friggin US economy all by itself, driven mostly by a company that claimed to be a non-profit until a few years ago.
bayesnet 9mo ago
It should actually be “Layer 3: Paid, ad-free, asbestos free, subscription-based search”. Come on. I don’t think it’s productive to make decisive and conspiratorial declarations on the future of Kagi search because they didn’t use the magic words you like. [ And since I know freediver is active here I want to state plainly that I would cancel immediately if there is so much as a hint of an ad in the Kagi results ;) ] edit: h/t to https://xkcd.com/641 https://xkcd.com/641
- shmeeed 9mo ago
  From the comments, I get the feeling that Kagi's customers are just a particularly paranoid bunch. ;) Anybody is free to cancel their subscription the moment Kagi turns out a malicious actor. And then... go back to Google, I guess?

lostlogin 9mo ago

It does say ‘without selling your attention.’ This isn’t quite the same thing though. I hope you are wrong, if not… wow.

dspillett 9mo ago
TBH that sounds more creepy. It (sort of) rules out ads but not the stalking that is inherent in current adtech methods. I'm more bothered by the latter than the former.

decimalenough 9mo ago

Kagi has been pretty consistent about funding itself with paying users instead of ads. I, for one, am a paid user but would quit if there were ads injected, since not having them (and, more importantly, having result rankings corrupted by them) is the exact thing I'm paying for.

canpan 9mo ago
Another paying user here. Very happy with Kagi, but would cancel asap if there were ads. Don't mind paying more. I just don't want ads. But I cannot really imagine it, they would loose half their competitive advantage. (The other half being having good results) For me it would probably mean to build a search from scratch. For 90% of my search use cases it's pretty straightforward. I mostly visit the same sites..
dmje 9mo ago
Paid user and early adopter here - same, I think. I'm delighted with Kagi, but the thought of it riddled with ads makes me sad. My understanding is same as yours - this is an attempt at an entirely different business model - moving to ads would be totally contrary to what they're trying (or at least - to date - have been trying) to build. Really hope they don't go this way...!

shmeeed 9mo ago

I don't see how it's conductive to the underlying big stakes discussion if we start condemning Kagi over this omission instead of assuming good faith. It's just distracting from the real issue at hand that is Google's monopoly and the details of the rulings and their enforcement. Call me naive, but I imagine Kagi would be VERY hesitant to force ads on their users, given that such a step would risk alienating a major part of their customer base, as they're well aware. If they were secretly planning to to it somewhere down the road, they could just as well do it the usual and proven way and lie about it until they've build a sufficient moat, which they're not having right now. IMO, they have precious little to gain from hinting at it like this now. And even if it were the case that this omission was consciously about keeping a door open for such a change in business models, there's a whole lot of leeway in approaches that involve ads, apart from the 100% user-as-a-product way that Google went with. Given the high customizability of their search, they e.g. could give users the option to turn ads on or off. Some people (don't ask me who, but I keep being told they exist) don't mind being shown ads or might even desire them. I remember way back when the first Google ads were clearly labeled as such and stood visually apart from organic search results. I personally don't think it would mean the end of the world if Kagi did something similar - in a transparent way, and preferrably as an opt-in. But at this point it's all needless speculation in my view.

walt_grata 9mo ago
I don't know dude. Every time I've assumed good faith on my paying for something means ad free, I've been screwed by some asshole with an MBA getting into a leadership position high enough to push ads through. I'd rather it be explicit
- shmeeed 9mo ago
  I get the point, we've all been burnt. But if you're not trusting anybody anyway, why would explicity in a non-binding blog post / press release soothe you? We're in the middle of an AI bubble propping up the whole friggin US economy all by itself, driven mostly by a company that claimed to be a non-profit until a few years ago.

bayesnet 9mo ago

It should actually be “Layer 3: Paid, ad-free, asbestos free, subscription-based search”. Come on. I don’t think it’s productive to make decisive and conspiratorial declarations on the future of Kagi search because they didn’t use the magic words you like. [ And since I know freediver is active here I want to state plainly that I would cancel immediately if there is so much as a hint of an ad in the Kagi results ;) ] edit: h/t to https://xkcd.com/641 https://xkcd.com/641

shmeeed 9mo ago
From the comments, I get the feeling that Kagi's customers are just a particularly paranoid bunch. ;) Anybody is free to cancel their subscription the moment Kagi turns out a malicious actor. And then... go back to Google, I guess?