>It's incredibly refreshing to know that the company providing my search results has an incentive to make things better for _me_ and not a legion of advertisers
Cable television and netflix have made it quite clear that payment does not mean “no ads”, it just means “no ads, yet”.
It still might be a better alternative in the short term, but the moment growth starts to peak, companies follow where the incentives lead them.
I'm a little tired of the rhetoric about Netflix adding ads. It's only on an entry-level account that is subsidized from the normal pricing (IIUC, correct me if I'm wrong). You could argue that they've artificially inflated the price of the normal plan or that it's a slippery slope, but it's not like they've forced ads on the existing plans.
I think what's more interesting/concerning/insidious is hidden ad content like product placement. It's getting to the point where personalized product placement could be embedded in shows dynamically.
It's not really about Netflix. The point is merely that "just because you pay them, doesn't mean you're not also a product to them". Companies love nothing more than to charge both ends of a deal.
Take Spotify as another example. I pay them, along with 188 million other people. Does that mean they won't turn around and ask artists, record companies and rights-owning conglomerates for money (or rebates) for putting their stuff in front of me? Of course not. Paying them means they have some interest in pleasing me, but it's far from the only way.
On the off chance that Spotify was being scrupulous about not taking payola in any form, it would be impossible for me to verify. Which is in itself a reason for them to cheat; they don't get much economic benefit from goodwill if no one can actually see them being honest.
This is not a reason to not use Kagi, it's just a reminder of what forces we're up against. Kagi will need an unusual amount of transparency in everything they do, in order to stand a chance in the long term.
And it IS a reason to not get warm fuzzy feelings merely from the fact that you're paying them.
If that happens, I would then look at other search engines as well.
Most people wouldn't once they get used to doing it one way, so that's all to the good for Kagi. But people like me wouldn't then use it, which is what life is about - your own personal choices.
I prefer to pay for services because at least there is a slight chance that they will follow their business plan.
But nothing stays the same for forever. As a consumer, we must also change to the changing environment. I'm completely weened off Google, for quite a while now, for example. I'm paying for everything that I use. But it is so little as to be laughable. For example, I use tutanota for my email, first account is free and subsequent ones are $1/month. Big whoop. $12 per year for private emails. I have a number of emails through them because I segregate all my emails - one for just friends, one for business, one for education, etc.
I would consider the Netflix UI to be ad laden for some years now with hundreds of originals shoved in your face in a non-customizable fashion and autoplaying etc. Also personalized thumbnails based on past watching behavior. You could argue that it's a good UX for most people, but for me it's always felt a bit more like user hostile marketing.
Netflix doesn't have enough content, so they resort to these tactics.
All major content providers left them years ago and started their own Netflixes. So they're left with a few movies from ten years ago, a couple of recent-ish releases, and their own content.
really, content creators should be banned from creating markets like Netflix (and eventually the other way around), but that would require the regulation to not be asleep at the wheel.
Should've specified I meant movies and other large conglomerates that tend towards oligopoly. I mean things like Disney+ shouldn't exist, its extending the concentration of market power vertically too.
I real wish that HN wannabe lawyers would stop throwing *poly words around with no legal justification.
In the streaming space in the US there is: Netflix, Disney+, AppleTV, Amazon Prime Video, HBO/Discovery, Paramount Plus, Peacock, STARZ, and a few other players. There is no “opoly” in streaming video.
That’s still a small number of players dominating the market. That’s the definition of an Oligopoly, and the Disney/HBO offerings very much fall into that.
They certainly have the ability to uniformly raise prices (tacit collusion) with no viable competition to enter the market and fill the gap (as even the vast sums others have thrown into it have shown how hard it is to produce good original content).
This is probably due to the characteristic that producing goods (decent original content) in this market is a big barrier to entry - which naturally leads to a small number of players. Natural monopolies and oligopolies are common - but do require closer regulatory attention to ensure desirable consumer outcomes than just letting the free market decide.
It may not entirely fit all definitions, but the general economic theory and applications/implications are relevant to consider this market.
The original post that you questioned was related to vertical integration - you could effectively find and replace it to “so you’re saying producers of operating systems shouldn’t be able to make their own web browser?”
> That’s still a small number of players dominating the market. That’s the definition of an Oligopoly, and the Disney/HBO offerings very much fall into that.
The market is “content”. Netflix competes with YouTube content producers, TikTok and it even said that one of its biggest competitors is Fortnite.
> This is probably due to the characteristic that producing goods (decent original content)
This goes back to YouTube. You and I may not think that YouTubers and TikTokkers are producing “decent original content”. But there is a generation that spends hours on both.
Besides that, there were over 550 original series being produced last year (https://collider.com/too-many-tv-shows-550-series-2021/). Competition is much fiercer for your attention than it was when you only had the three major networks producing content and everyone else buying rights to show reruns.
There are bidding wars between all of the streaming services for new content from producers. Competition is more fierce than ever.
The price of streaming before was never sustainable. Netflix was borrowing billions a year for years to produce and obtain content. Disney+ was never going to be profitable selling its service at the introductory price. It’s not “collusion”. Every company has to turn a profit eventually.
Yes I realize that Netflix was “profitable” by GAAP standards. But it was getting deeper in debt every year.
Very little as a percentage of all the professional content that’s in the world.
And the value of IP without execution capability is overrated. Warner also has iconic content. But Disney has been able to make successful movies out of its 3rd tier IP while Warner has struggled with its first tier.
Sony isn’t doing too well with most of its Marvel content except Spider-Man and that’s produced by Disney.
>The original post that you questioned was related to vertical integration - you could effectively find and replace it to “so you’re saying producers of operating systems shouldn’t be able to make their own web browser?”
I think time has shown MS was correct in making their own browser, but of course incorrect in all the corrupt tactics they used to make their browser succeed over Netscape's.
This is severe rose colored glasses. Netscape was always a horrible application and crash prone on every operating system it ran on. There were geek wars back in the day bragging about how well our operating systems handle Netscape crashes - classic MacOS failed miserably.
IE was a much better browser. Especially the Mac version that when it was introduced, was the most CSS compliant browser that existed.
Netscape starting over from scratch was cited as “Things you should never do” in an article written by Joel Spolsky (StackOverflow cofounder) two decades ago.
It's not just netflix. I hate the my Google TV pops up with ads for media. My PS5 boots straight into the store. At least my Apple Tv mostly doesn't shove ads in my face though my iPhone seems try try to shove Apple Music and/or Apple TV+ at me now and then
2. Create a new plan at the price of the old plan. With ads.
I'm sorry, but pretending that they're not adding ads to their "regular" pricing plan is semantic at best. This isn't something they dreamed up overnight. They've been planning this for years and increasing their prices accordingly.
I agree with your product placement comment. I feel gross when I notice it. I also wonder what happens when Netflix decides it makes way more money on people watching the ads - ie. Google initially calling ads a detriment to search quality but not being able to resist the $. I could see a day when they remove the no-ads plan.
Chromecast screensavers _are_ an add for other shows in Netflix.
I am paying and have no way to disable that visual pollution nonsense.
Extremely exasperating when you are trying to choose something adequate for toddlers and they keep seeing flashy stuff on the screen and saying they want to watch that.
It's not about the user having to see ads. It's about Netflix trying to sell ad spots to advertisers, which might affect all (even paying) users. I.e. by getting pressured into censoring or promiting certain shows, to close the advertising deal.
HBO started broadcasting 50 years ago, charging a monthly fee for commercial free movies (often released much earlier than on cable) and tv shows.
With the exception of filler ads for their own content that occurs when they need to wait for the next quarter time, ex movie ended at 12:55pm. There have been no ads
I think it’s important to consider whether this happens with all companies, or whether venture capital seeking to maximize returns to the detriment of both the business and the user is a factor here.
If they plan to go public ever, its pretty much an inevitability, at least if US market incentives stay as they are. Cable isn't venture capital funded, and they're rife with profit maximization.
Having the actual user pay is a necessary but not sufficient condition for a user centered product or service. It doesn’t guarantee the company won’t double dip but without a direct economic model nothing is even possible but ads and surveillance.
It strikes me that a company like Kagi should be able to craft a legally enforcable agreement with its customers which expressly forbids the company from selling ads and conducting surveillance.
The agreement could be carefully written by a skilled lawyer to define the things Kagi cannot do, the proof customers must present in order to proceed with a valid lawsuit, and even the maximum damages that the customer may sue for.
In that case, if Kagi was found at some point to be using customer data for these purposes, it could be sued very easily and by many parties.
People are calling for regulation for data privacy. In the meantime, Kagi can create its own regulation it will hold itself to for the benefit of its users, can it not?
Can you add a poison pill to a company where a select group of people can decide you broke one of your founding principles and hand the company over to someone else?
No VC startup would do that but if possible would allow trust.
Companies have an incentive to make money off of their customers' data, and technology just means that they can make money at every level (your ISP, your smart TV, the apps you use on it and the websites your browse).
We're so accustomed to entities gathering data about us that it's become part of the background.
Why is it the default that my home is on Google Maps/Google Earth? I should have to opt in, not opt out.
Just because there is "public" information about me as a registered voter or home owner doesn't mean that anyone should be able get a copy of this data, put it online and connect it to other data?
Cable was never intended to be ad free. It was originally a method to rebroadcast over the air content from the broadcast stations in areas that couldn’t get a signal. You’re paying for the infrastructure to make that possible - not the content.
Complaining that cable TV isn’t ad free because you pay for it is like saying all content over the internet isn’t Ad free because you pay for your internet connection.
If the only metric of success is yearly revenue, yes.
If that is the only metric, the best business model is to extract as much money out of your user, while simultaneously offering less for the same amount of money, until you reach the asymptotic ideal of 100% profit.
If you were to start a company, would you be willing to do that? Would you choose profit over everything else? Some would, but not everybody.
Cable television and netflix have made it quite clear that payment does not mean “no ads”, it just means “no ads, yet”.
It still might be a better alternative in the short term, but the moment growth starts to peak, companies follow where the incentives lead them.