I Kagi’s case they are paying per search to connect to APIs to search other search engines and aggregate the results. They have a very real cost per search that isn’t only maintaining software.
Technically yes I guess, but I would expect “maintenance” to refer to the cost of keeping the ice cream cart working and looking good, I wouldn’t expect the wholesale cost of ice cream to be in the “maintenance” column of my cart finances.
Good thing I stopped there instead of also getting into the difference between repair maintenance (your car’s broken O2 sensor) and regular maintenance (fix an identified security vulnerability) then.
Ahh. So you’re fine with all the ads on YouTube? Two and a half minutes of commercials every 8 minutes on streaming services? Unblockable ads on websites?
I pay money to the fediverse hosting foundation because hosting software costs money. I pay creators to create content because creating content costs them time and if they are going to do that thing, they need money.
No, that’s why I pay for YouTube too. If I wouldn’t use it as much that the price is worth it, I would likely not use it at all (besides the irregular link thrown over my fence ever once in a while).
I think your first sentence is a valid opinion to hold, but I disagree that they’re just as bad when they’re very upfront about what you’re paying for. Google et all meanwhile don’t make it clear that they monitize user data unless you’re paying attention
tl;dr: you’re paying for search either way. A reliable and secure open-source non-profit would be better but I’d rather be paying directly than use a “free” service which extracts an opaque and invariably sinister cost in perpetuity.
No one should have to pay for anything. We have enough excess that a gift economy is entirely feasible. Convincing folks of that, creating new systems to realize the possibility, and shifting from our existing systems, are all separate and difficult tasks.
In the current system I do think an independently run organization funded by the public (likely via taxes but possibly via private donation) does make sense though. In lieu of that, or something better, there is no useful internet search without payment. Using free search engines means either someone else eats the cost (which may work for small/local communities but isn’t scalable without massive public funding and/or taxes) or the cost is subsidized a la surveillance capitalism and advertising.
Using free services run for profit extracts a cost that may be difficult to measure but there is no doubt it exists. When for-profit companies obscure that cost I am compelled to assume it is because they estimate I would not be willing to pay the asking price for their services.
Adjust this relationship to the magnitude of entire societies enveloped within, and seemingly dependent on, those services and the choice to personally decouple from that paradigm is an incredibly attractive option. I think, if one has the means, it may be ethically compelling as well (but that’s a different conversation).
No one should have to pay to search the web. They’re as bad as all the other monetized bullshit.
It costs money to maintain software?
I Kagi’s case they are paying per search to connect to APIs to search other search engines and aggregate the results. They have a very real cost per search that isn’t only maintaining software.
Wouldn’t that be part of the “maintenance” cost? If I run an ice cream cart, I need to keep purchasing supplies to keep selling ice cream.
Technically yes I guess, but I would expect “maintenance” to refer to the cost of keeping the ice cream cart working and looking good, I wouldn’t expect the wholesale cost of ice cream to be in the “maintenance” column of my cart finances.
Sure! I mean, my point was this stuff costs money. Wasn’t meant to be as technically correct as possibly.
No, usually materials cost is tracked separately from equipment maintenance.
God dang people, maintenance is in quotes for a reason.
Wasn’t supposed to be as technically correct as possible. Meant to express to the original person that things cost money, that’s it.
Good thing I stopped there instead of also getting into the difference between repair maintenance (your car’s broken O2 sensor) and regular maintenance (fix an identified security vulnerability) then.
I’m dying hahahahah! Yeah, depending on where you work that word carries a lot of baggage
Ahh. So you’re fine with all the ads on YouTube? Two and a half minutes of commercials every 8 minutes on streaming services? Unblockable ads on websites?
I block all ads from all sites on the internet.
I pay money to the fediverse hosting foundation because hosting software costs money. I pay creators to create content because creating content costs them time and if they are going to do that thing, they need money.
No, but if you DON’T want ads then they need to get money from somewhere?
I RARELY use YouTube
No, that’s why I pay for YouTube too. If I wouldn’t use it as much that the price is worth it, I would likely not use it at all (besides the irregular link thrown over my fence ever once in a while).
You’re why there are ads.
I thinks it’s all the people and companies uploading thousands of hours of video every second. I’m pretty sure that’s the reason for the ads.
Im okay with it tbh. The everything must be free on the internet mindset is what led ads working its way in everywhere.
I think your first sentence is a valid opinion to hold, but I disagree that they’re just as bad when they’re very upfront about what you’re paying for. Google et all meanwhile don’t make it clear that they monitize user data unless you’re paying attention
tl;dr: you’re paying for search either way. A reliable and secure open-source non-profit would be better but I’d rather be paying directly than use a “free” service which extracts an opaque and invariably sinister cost in perpetuity.
No one should have to pay for anything. We have enough excess that a gift economy is entirely feasible. Convincing folks of that, creating new systems to realize the possibility, and shifting from our existing systems, are all separate and difficult tasks.
In the current system I do think an independently run organization funded by the public (likely via taxes but possibly via private donation) does make sense though. In lieu of that, or something better, there is no useful internet search without payment. Using free search engines means either someone else eats the cost (which may work for small/local communities but isn’t scalable without massive public funding and/or taxes) or the cost is subsidized a la surveillance capitalism and advertising.
Using free services run for profit extracts a cost that may be difficult to measure but there is no doubt it exists. When for-profit companies obscure that cost I am compelled to assume it is because they estimate I would not be willing to pay the asking price for their services.
Adjust this relationship to the magnitude of entire societies enveloped within, and seemingly dependent on, those services and the choice to personally decouple from that paradigm is an incredibly attractive option. I think, if one has the means, it may be ethically compelling as well (but that’s a different conversation).