Hacker News Reader

Comment by rovingEngine | Hacker News Reader

I think Google was “better” from a users point of view in 2005 because it wasn’t that good at selling ads yet. I still remember the epiphany of the first time I used Google in 1999. It was amazing.

I’ve thought the same about pre-ad Twitter and Facebook.

Early on, startups with free services look a lot like non-profits and just maximize user benefit to grow. The problem is they’re not non-profits, and have to make money at some point. That has tended to mean ads.

I’d easily pay, say, $9/mo to have access to an ad-free search engine that made me feel the way 1999 Google did.

View on HN

$9/mo is not going to cut it. Google's domestic annual revenue per user in 2019 was $256. [0] That's $21.33 per month. Not all of Google's revenue is from Ads, of course, but the vast majority is. (Let's ignore for now the valid counterpoint that Ads are increasingly served on other Google properties than Search.)

But even charging users $21.33/mo for an ad-free search experience most likely wouldn't be enough. By providing such an option, you'd greatly reduce the value of the remaining Ads pool.

The optimistic perspective on this is that if you are one of the users with disposable income, you're essentially subsidizing a great search engine and a suite of other tools for the less well-off ones.

[0] https://miro.medium.com/max/6545/0*YTqXb-F5UiVhtlIS

Let’s say ads will always make more money (I have no reason to believe they won’t), and that’s required to be the dominant search engine because the web is big and expensive to organize.

I’d bet there’s some way to characterize what I and others liked about the earlier web and create a search engine that just worries about that stuff. I’d pay $9/mo for whatever 1/3 of Google’s spend per user would get me. That’s not to say this thing would “beat” Google, but it could profitably exist.

I doubt it, because 1/3 of Google's spend per user isn't enough when you can't attract many paying users in the first place, because you would charge much more than $9/mo, because almost no one wants to pay for a search engine so your revenue will have to make up for those people too, and then even fewer people are willing to pay more than $9/mo for 1/3 of the quality.

And then I'd guess the 20 remaining users will still complain because 1999 Google is a nostalgic memory impossible to recreate without a 1999 internet for a 1999 self to live in and has little to do with raw search quality.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com