Is there any point in launching a search engine in 2021? Marc Benioff thinks so | Hacker News Reader

Is there any point in launching a search engine in 2021? Marc Benioff thinks so

protocol.com

44 pointsdanso67 comments

Currently a Show HN:

Show HN: You.com, private search engine that summarizes the web – built for devs - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29165601 - Nov 2021 (115 comments)

> You.com has publicly committed to never sell user data through targeted ads.

I wish this weren't the line people use. Most of the companies we complain about privacywise don't sell user data either. How about "don't monetize user data?"

There's no reason to collect user data in the first place. Look at DuckDuckGo's privacy policy:

https://duckduckgo.com/privacy

"DuckDuckGo does not collect or share personal information. That is our privacy policy in a nutshell."

I love that DDG exists but they do write:

"We also save searches" here: https://duckduckgo.com/privacy

Our incognito mode does not.

As noted in this[0] comment thread, DDG does not appear to communicate with third-parties, but You does even when the user is in You's "private mode".

You might not save searches, but those third-parties can save whatever data they get.

People have asked you about this a few times but we haven't received clarification from you yet regarding what's going on here. Can you please shed some light here?

[0]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29172892

You won't receive that clarification. This company has already taken funding and have to profit somehow. First it was the browser plugin, soon it's who knows what. You're not getting an answer, and that's likely very intentional.

And that's fine. The simple fact is that he has repeatedly claimed that he/You "care deeply about trust [and] privacy." He can either back that up by addressing the many concerns people have, or he can avoid that conversation and leave behind two HN threads with extensive (and still growing) examples of why that claim is bullshit.

These threads can be cited forever, any time You comes up, and they'll speak for themselves. It's his choice.

> has repeatedly claimed that he/You "care deeply about trust [and] privacy."

Surely you see through marketing speak, as do I. Ask yourself if someone so clueless with the needs and concerns of developers and privacy conscious individuals actually has a chance of grokking the concept let alone embodying it through his search appliance. This is even without considering that they took funding of 20MM or more, and have no clear profit strategy. Those chickens will come home to roost sooner or later, and it will be at the user's expense.

This search app is dead in the water. Soon they'll pivot, and assuming they're unable to monetize their user data, they'll fold and this CEO will go on to consume someone else's investments in their next venture.

Allow me to pessimize further on this topic: unless their next funder/donor is an intelligence agency, they have almost zero chance at being a viable product that gets any use.

Yes, no monetization through targeted ads.

But the door is open to monetizing user data in other ways?

> To see results and get the convenience of you.com, you’ll need to add the you.com Chrome extension.

Close tab.

This is a terrible first time user experience. I know that it is possible to show search results without a chrome extension. Show me some results, and then maybe you will be able to convince me to add an extension for some bells and whistles.

We heard you! We no longer require an extension - hope you check it out :)

Thanks, I think I will

Why on earth does this demand to be installed as an extension in Chrome just to do a search? What is the driving factor behind that decision if they don't track your data?

Hm, I've been using it since private beta and on Firefox it just works.

Well, you see, they bill themselves as so much more convenient than Google, so naturally to search, you need to start by getting to a computer (and not a phone) (and in the U.S.) and install a browser extension. But asides from that, it's very convenient, like Bing (because it uses Bing to serve the actual results), except you don't get the Microsoft Rewards.

But anyway, the point is why wouldn't you trust the founder of Salesforce with being super duper into not capitalizing on customer data.

We'll open source the 33Kb extension soon so you can see that all it does is changing one setting. I understand the distrust, I hate sketchy extensions also. Sadly, it's the only way to become your default as a new search engine :)

Sure, sure, and what's the reason why I am required to make you.com my default search engine before I'm permitted to even try it?

Also, we both know that it's absolutely NOT the only way. A user can change their default search engine through their settings. It's more steps, but it's certainly allowed. In case your company hasn't noticed yet, click "Settings" in Chrome, then "Manage Search Engines," then click "Add". Once you've added you.com, click "make default".

Yes, and you can do that and then make as many searches as you want without requiring the extension. We give the steps and explanation in our FAQ First question and answer: https://youdotcom.notion.site/FAQ-8c871d6c99d84e02955fda772a...

>Sadly, it's the only way to become your default as a new search engine :)

Well that's just not true at all. We're expected to trust this search engine with our privacy while you're telling a crowd of people a blatant lie that almost feels like gaslighting? A crowd of people who you know knows enough to spot that lie a mile away, no less?

Yeah, no. I'm out on You (no pun intended, but it definitely fits). Hard pass.

Wow. Did you really think this nonsense was going to fly? Or that the size of the extension is the problem? Or, frankly, that you're the right guy to be doing unscripted PR of any kind? Somebody paid a lot of money to make this- why are you sabotaging it?

> Sadly, it's the only way to become your default as a new search engine

This is simply not true. Just confirmed on fresh install of Chrome that setting the default search engine to a self-hosted searx instance works fine without any extensions.

If they can do it, so can You.

Context issue for searx implementing it: https://github.com/searx/searx/issues/1666

A browser extension (these were called "toolbars" or "BHOs" in Web 1.0) is the only way to continue capturing searches and direct them to your engine.

You.com will quickly figure out that endpoint protection software ("Antivirus") doesn't care how amazing you are or how you are different from the thousand other privacy search engines and labels all of these as "Potentially Unwanted Programs" and nukes them from orbit.

https://www.notion.so/youdotcom/Setting-You-com-as-your-defa...

Alternatives to installing an extension!

Right but they're still requiring you to set it as the default search engine or you can't use it on Chrome outside of an Incognito window. That's such bad behavior (and I know it's a hard market to break into) I can't really see ever trying this out more than once or twice just to see what it looks like.

More importantly, it goes directly to the amount of respect they have for the consumer.

Stick with DDG.

Yea... Driving factor: convenience of your search engine.

You actually can try it out in incognito mode and any other browser. But we found that without the convenience of a navbar search, most people won't give it a proper try either way.

I hope we can drop this requirement even in Chrome when we become one of the default options.

If you set your search engine default to http://you.com manually in Chrome with "https://you.com/search?q=%s" you will not need the extension... but for most people convenience wins and well...

It's tough to go up against a monopoly that controls the browser too?

You can find more details for every browser setup here: https://youdotcom.notion.site/Make-You-com-your-default-sear...

Hey all. We heard you today. The Chrome extension requirement is gone and we are fully open in all browsers now. Thanks for your feedback. Keep it coming :)

good.

my quick and superficial observation is that the landing page is very cluttered. the search is buried.

however, i do like the idea of a search engine for devs. as a dev, i should be able to create a custom search engine for, say, knitting for my wife and her friends, obviously skinnable. i would spend time investigating such an engine.

The extension has no read access (Chrome tells you its permissions). It really doesn't track. We'll open source it to show. We hoped it would be more convenient but other extensions are so sketchy that generally people hate all of them.

We want to be open and listened to the community and dropped the requirement of the extension entirely. Let me know what you think of the search experience :)

$20mm for a 2010s web mashup shim around bing.com that looks and behaves like it's an undergraduate project. I guess they're blowing the budget on submarines instead of product.

Must be nice to have rich friends :-|

Not really. A lot of BigTech services are undergoing unbundling of late [0]. And given what has transpired, it does look like such 'shims' are here to stay and grow.

[0] Various "NewCloud" upstarts are perhaps the most loudest example of this.

in other words the tech is poorly implemented and the idea is obvious? ;-)

Plus the business model is, "We'll figure that out later."

People acting like Brave search didn't just launch.

Yes there's a point, just do it. See Bing tank man fiasco. See Google ad monopoly abuse.

I hope You.com is successful, as there needs to be more players in this space, but I hope to see more details instead of spamming "privacy".

Pro tip 1: Don't just rent Bing's API like DDG, you'll end up with censored results. Also, Bing results suck, so your service will suck.

Pro tip 2: Most people will have to type "you." to get their browser autocomplete to work as youtube will be the first result. You're competing with a very popular prefix, I suggest a name change, but it seems this service was made for the domain name.

Pro tip 3: Noone is going to install your extension that cares about privacy. Noone will trust that the CEO of Salesforce doesn't want to collect data.

Pro tip 4: The homepage throws a lot at you at once.

Why don't new search engines build off of something like http://commoncrawl.org/ instead of Bing's API? Is it purely cost/resources or a combination of freshness and steeper learning curve?

I've heard (but can't find the reference) that it doesn't have good enough coverage (independent of freshness).

I searched something on mobile then clicked on the arrow to see more search results (the one shown above Twitter and whatever) and it redirects me to a authentication page.

That lasted a good 10 seconds before I closed the browser.

I didn't even get that far. When I clicked Search I got no results and got a message in a scary, red banner that says "To see results and get the convenience of you.com, you’ll need to add the you.com Chrome extension".

I'm not even using Chrome. But I guess Vivaldi masquerades as Chrome to websites. Whatever, doesn't matter. I shouldn't have to install a browser extension to use a search engine. Bye, bye.

https://www.notion.so/youdotcom/Setting-You-com-as-your-defa...

Alternatives to installing the chrome extention!

Yea, Vivaldi has some extension bug but you can manually set your defaults or go into incognito mode to try it out without the extension.

Is there a reason why you have to set your default engine in order to even try you.com?

Yea. If you want to alter your search settings and have real agency and control over your results... you'll need to create an account to save those settings. You can also use it without changing your settings :)

I make accounts for B2B sites and sometimes e-commerce sites.

I made a Google account only for gmail after years of using their search engine. Why would I ever spend the time authenticating to try a new product? I think you are greatly discounting how poor of a UX experience that was and what value you are gaining from it.

Looks like a lot of the money was spent on press. How many more articles am I going to see on HN about this chrome browser extension search thing?

Lol. We actually spend zero dollars on press.

Considering the responses you've been copying and pasting all day with minor variations whilst ignoring legitimate and relevant feedback from the people you claim to have made this "service" for, I highly recommend you reconsider this stance.

Do what's best for your business and, for the love of Zeus, let someone else handle PR.

Yap, I listen. The Chrome extension requirement is gone and we are fully open in all browsers now. Thanks for your feedback.

I'd like to apologize for how I've been speaking to you. When I saw your product, I was filled with hope- more competition for the behemoth to deal with is always a good thing, especially if it's privacy-focused and at the very least non-adversarial towards users! Then when I gave it a try and saw that typing a query into the search box didn't lead me to results, merely to a page telling me to download an extension to make this my default search engine right away before even being allowed to try the service... well, I went to the comments to see if my experience was the norm- turns out, not only was my experience the norm, but the founder and ceo of the company was in the comments! Great! Being able to engage with founders and get a deeper understanding of what they're doing and what their struggles/goals/pain points/plans are is one of the things I love most about HN! I can engage with him and see what's going on! Then I see the CEO is replying defensively with things that made no sense, things that tried to make the commenter feel like they were being unreasonable for expecting to try something before jumping through hoops (and by "jumping through hoops", I'm not referring to how difficult/easy installing / uninstalling addons / changing defaults is, I'm referring to deliberate barriers being raised by dark patterns for reasons that do not benefit the user in any way!)... That's what really got my goat. It wasn't the technical inaccuracies in some of the replies, it wasn't the side-stepping while building strawmen when faced with legitimate concerns, it was this particular attitude more than anything that made me angry. It made me think if this is the way the company treats its users, how can they be trusted?

However.

I'm sorry I lashed out- sincerely, I am. I do hope you have great success and I honestly hope that You (and you!) become the next Google but without doing the whole "evil monopoly" thing they did. I wish you the best of luck.

Also, I'm sorry this apology isn't a great apology- pride is a bad habit that I'm still trying to work on.

A lot of people are saying you need to install the extension, but they do have a link describing how to get around that and just use the search

https://youdotcom.notion.site/Setting-You-com-as-your-defaul...

You can do https://you.com/search?q=<query> to see results without installing anything

Seems like the extension sets it up to search through the URL bar instead of having to go to the website

What is a search engine? What is the scope of the data that you search? Who is the customer?

Google has made these decisions.

1. The customer is the advertisement companies. This is where Google gets their money from, and therefore is the primary customer.

2. Advertisements, SEO, and information from across the "free web" is collated into one simple to use source (just a "textbox" and one button). The simplest interface you can possibly get.

----------

For a new search engine to outcompete Google, it must change either #1 or #2. Changing #2 seems difficult, but maybe its not so insurmountable? StackOverflow has shown how "tags" can be added to a search for example. I also am old enough to remember "web directories", which was more like a filesystem / phonebook representation of the internet.

But ultimately, the big benefit of search is determining the scope of #1: who is the customer, and how do you get money from them?

----------

People may say that "Search Engines" don't have room for innovation anymore, but frankly, I personally have seen the rise of Search Engines over the past 20 years.

* Wolfram Alpha -- An odd thing to call a "search engine", but it really is one. Searches upon mathematical encyclopedias, and a strong focus on mathematical formulas. I'd definitely call it successful in its corner of the internet.

* Tagging-engines -- The tagging system is moderated by humans. And then humans add/remove data to the tags. Moderators tightly control the tags to ensure that they remain useful (ex: If someone mis-tagged C++ on a Java question on StackOverflow, a human has to come by and fix it later).

But tagging systems are "easy" to moderate, and the job of the community is farmed out. You can imagine that a tagging engine is a community platform where the work is distributed among the whole community, and am moderation system exists to build up trust.

Ultimately: tagging-engines have a search-engine like interface, but the human-element to curate and organize the information is clearly a good model.

--------

I'd say tagging-engines have had the biggest rise in the past 10 years, not only StackOverflow, but many communities seem to be tagging their own data someway / somehow. The moderation team is the product really, even if the moderation team has been recruited from the community. "Crowd Sourcing" at its finest.

I think there's quite a lot of ways you can change both #1 and #2.

#1: Search engines are cheap enough to operate that you can run them non-profit, for community benefit. The "customer" can be the public good.

#2: Even sticking to the free web, depending on how you adjust the ranking algorithms can significantly impair the effectiveness of SEO.

Hey all. We heard you today. The Chrome extension requirement is gone and we are fully open in all browsers now. Thanks for your feedback. Keep it coming :)

what a poor name for a search engine.

A: "Hey how often does the earth go around the sun?"

B: "I dunno... you it."

B: "I dunno... You find out"

Could be the next "hey, Siri" phrase :D

"Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

I disagree with your assessment of my comment. There was nothing more to add about it. It's a very poor name, and for a product such as this where you want massive adoption across the entire world, the name is everything.

A name can make or break, and their name has broken them before they even got off the ground.

My guess is that they had a domain name sitting around, and this was the best idea they had to monetise the domain. Because there's no way you'd start with a great product and then add on a shitty name at the end.

None of that changes that your original comment was obviously a shallow dismissal, and those are against the site guidelines for good reason.

> Both DuckDuckGo and You.com partner with Bing on some search results.

> It also announced a $20 million seed funding round led by Marc Benioff's TIME Ventures. Breyer Capital, Sound Ventures and Day One Ventures also participated in the funding round

How do you get $20 million dollars for literally just tapping into Bings api? ( https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/bing/apis/bing-web-search-ap... )

It doesn't make any sense at all. It's not even an afternoons project.

in this case? You work at Salesforce. An absolutely astounding amount of access to funding is and always has been personal connections.

Tapping into Bings Apis looks like a good plan to get started..

> How do you get $20 million dollars for literally just tapping into Bings api?

Eh, it marginally boosts Bings revenue, average daily usage, engagement, etc... and shows some type of new sector growth. So go long in MSFT before earnings or push big press releases on this whole new way to monetize search, and you're in a $20m startup position for basically peanuts.

> How do you get $20 million dollars for literally just tapping into Bings api?

How much do you think the fair price on the domain "you.com" is?

That's probably the bulk of your $20 million right there. I have to imagine that's prime domain-name real-estate.

First line if the article:

> CEO Marc Benioff has been holding onto the "you.com" domain name since 1996

So it cost them nothing.

It cost Marc Benioff nothing.

But what's the fair price to offer the Venture Capitalists for a shot at owning the you.com domain name? If you own 10% of the company, you own 10% of the company's assets (including you.com).

---------------

As you can see, selling equity and retaining control of you.com is the obviously best move. Even if this search-engine thing doesn't work out, the domain name will be activated and used for something, driving more traffic and building a brand.

> It's not even an afternoons project.

"Please don't post shallow dismissals, especially of other people's work. A good critical comment teaches us something."

What you posted was a parody of the genre. We're trying for something different here. Maybe you don't owe $20M-funded startups better, but you definitely owe this community better if you're participating in it, so please don't post like this in the future.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

> How do you get $20 million dollars for literally just tapping into Bings api?

Its not a 20m payment for what you did, its 20m to help you do what plan.

You see "20m for tapping into bing" they see "20m for a new business plan that will make >>20m by tapping into a massive market, and leveraging existing companies effort to not re-invent the wheel"

Reply on news.ycombinator.com