Google is not a search engine. It's an advertising service. Their whole business model revolves around a critical mass of eyeballs, which flock to free services. This will never happen for the average user.
this post was submitted on 03 Oct 2023
1245 points (96.5% liked)
internet funeral
6929 readers
2 users here now
ㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤㅤart of the internet
What is this place?
• [email protected] with text and titles
• post obscure and surreal art with text
• nothing memetic, nothing boring
• unique textural art images
• Post only images or gifs (except for meta posts)
Guidlines
• no video posts are allowed
• No memes. Not even surreal ones. Post your memes on [email protected] instead
• If your submission can be posted to [email protected] (I.e. no text images), It should be posted there instead
This is a curated magazine. Post anything and everything. It will either stay up or be lost into the void.
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
If you say you'd pay for a search engine. Oof. Guys we used to just link useful things at the end of our blog posts and on our myspace pages. Then search engines came in and we didn't have to. Then they killed the SEO placement of blogs. Now you can't find anything useful unless you try their AI. The whole business model is convincing us we need them while they make the internet less efficient to scroll through.
... do you think MySpace came before search engines?
Replace Myspace with Geocities and it's broadly correct of my experience in 90s internet.
There were a ton of search engines in the 90s around the same time Geocities was released. AskJeeves was probably the most popular, but there was Altavista, Lycos, Dogpile, Yahoo... Shit, Google came out in 97, which was only a few years after Geocities.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(7 replies)
You just dated the hell out of yourself, but also showed how young you are at the same time.
load more comments
(2 replies)
Actual Internet funeral
Pretty much https://kagi.com/ but outrageous
Kagi is like google was 10 years ago though, useable and useful, while Google has morphed an SEO trashcan. I wouldn't pay them any amount for current quality
load more comments
(9 replies)
Image Transcription:
A white page with black text. On the top left is the Google logo. Underneath is text reading:
"UH OH!
"You've used all 75 of your daily free searches!. You're currently using Google Lite for infinite searches, please consider subscribing to Google Premium."
On the right side is a digital drawing of a bulldog standing like a human with its right forepaw on its hip and its left forepaw holding a pair of binoculars to its eyes. Underneath the dog is text reading:
"Get one month of Google Premium for $14.99 AUD!"
[I am a human, if I’ve made a mistake please let me know. Please consider providing alt-text for ease of use. Thank you. 💜 We have a community! If you wish for us to transcribe something, want to help improve ease of use here on Lemmy, or just want to hang out with us, join us at [email protected]!]
load more comments
(6 replies)
I might be the odd person out here, but if Google offered a premium sub service that did 0 data collection and I never got served a thing by ad sense, I'd pay for it.
My thought is that with data collection and advertising you become the product that is being sold. I'd rather buy a product than be a product.
EDIT: Not just search, but a sub for all Google products I use.
Free/Tracking you = $$
Subscription/not tracking you = $$
Both = $$$$
See: youtube premium
Knowing Google, they'd charge you and still track you. Also, if YouTube Red is any indication, they'd probably charge closer to $150. You can get a search engine that doesn't track you or have ads called Kagi, for $10 per month.
Not quite there for non-tech folks, but the paid search engine Kagi immensely improved my search experience.
load more comments
(6 replies)
Oh, they’d be happy to offer you that for $4.99/mo. Then, after a year or so, they’d inject some preferred provider search results, and bump the ad-free tier to $9.99 mo. The $4.99 tier would be unlimited search, but with ads. Want to block bullshitty SEO sites? Extra $2.99.
load more comments
(29 replies)
I'm not sure you you understand how Google makes money...which would tell you why this would never happen.
I thought I understood how Twitter made money
I think you understood, but Elon didn't 🤣
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
This is literally how their search API works. Except the limit is more like 25 queries a day and the price would be closer to $40/mo for average user's usage.
load more comments
(1 replies)
DON'T GIVE THEM IDEAS!
They're already working on this shit. I can't get them to stop spamming me that my storage is almost full. I'm like, hmm, 80% full after using it for fifteen years, that means by math I've got at least three more years of storage left. Oh wait, if I take my videos down to local storage it goes up to six or seven years left.
Fucking do it, I dare you.
I've recently started paying for unlimited searches over on Kagi, and I'm very happy with the results so far. I'd gladly pay if it meant less search cruft and higher result quality, but sadly Google's just been going downhill for quite a while now.
Its a big black box with an unquantifiable improvement in quality, and I have no particular inclination to sign of for yet another subscription service. Particularly when I already watch my existing services creep up in price year after year.
That's before I even get into shit like standard utilities. My electricity bill last month was $500, almost entirely based on the Texas AC bill. Bro, who has another $10/mo to spend on Newoogle when I'm maxed out just keeping the lights on?
Electric companies need to be taken to task it's getting stupid. Every year they whine about how the infrastructure can't handle our load and tell us to sweat it out during the hottest part of the day. Then, they raise the prices with the excuse of fixing it all and never do. It's fucking criminal
load more comments
(2 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(2 replies)
view more: next ›