No surprise here, but what a bummer that this is "The Way™"
Just let me pay you $3-5/ month to never see an ad again. It's worth it to me since the service is actually decent.
Just let me pay you $3-5/ month to never see an ad again. It's worth it to me since the service is actually decent.
It is extremely far from "no one".
From what I've seen, it's typical for startups at this stage to be generating minimal revenue. Perplexity has raised close to $1 billion, so they likely aren't under pressure to be profitable just yet. Bringing in tens of millions in revenue annually would actually be quite a strong start.
It may sometimes seem like “no one pays for anything”, but clearly a lot of people are paying for Perplexity Pro. It’s their business, so they can run ads if they think that will help them grow, but it’s not because no one paid for the Pro tier.
The point is, I have a Pro Perplexity subscription for a year, because my ISP was offering year long access for free. I think it is pretty terrible. The answers when I select Claude 3.5 Sonnet as the model for Perplexity always seem incredibly stupid compared to the answers when I use Claude 3.5 Sonnet from Anthropic’s site (which I think is really good).
I like the idea of Perplexity supplying citations, but it seems more like it is parallel construction than citing how the model came up with a particular answer. And, it seems like it is tossing out superior results whenever it cannot pretend to show its work.
It's an LLM, throwing whatever text the model says you'll like best. It's amazing that they can hack it to provide links, but if you are expecting it to have a "thought-line" with "traceable research sources", you are just falling for the hype.
Its citations are often bunkum and code generation abilities are very limited, compared to GPT-4o or Claude 3.5 Sonnet, heck even tiny 4-bit quantized 14B local LLMs are way better at code generation (Qwen 2.5 Coder).
Google got off the ground because they had magic sauce that made their product noticeably better. LLM-based search engines don’t have that, especially when they’re using an LLM built elsewhere.
Everyone having a $20 price point probably means that that’s the point they think the customers will pay for it. Will introducing a $5/mo tier quadruple their paid user base? My guess is no, but that a lot of the people currently paying $20 will drop to paying $5
It is usually a fixed component + a single digit percentage. For larger payments the fixed component becomes largely irrelevant. For small payments it can eat up most of the money involved.
As a quick example, Stripe's standard price for a credit card transaction in the US is 2.9% + $0.30. For a $5 payment that's almost 10% in direct fees, which is just about low enough that this is often where saas pricing starts.
This assumes you do tax calculation yourself (or ignore it until you're big enough) and handle fraud detection yourself. If you pay Stripe for these you're paying a significantly larger fixed fee.
There's also another significant risk at such low prices: In case of a disputed payment, which can happen a long time after the payment and will likely be more frequent if you don't pay to proactively deal with fraud, Stripe will charge you a $15 dispute fee regardless of the end result.
Customer support: When you are charging money for something, you need to give support to customers regarding their billing etc.
https://thenextweb.com/news/heres-how-much-money-you-made-go...
Looks at cable TV
Looks at streaming services
TV - take your pick of classic shows. Radio - 6 music for me. Education - provides resources for all school key stages in line with the UK curriculum. Sports - a bit sporadic but you can get everything except baseball at some point in the year. Arts - broadcasts the Glastonbury festival. Live shows you can attend and be in the audience.
All for £170 a year and no ads.
It won’t last much longer, the fee itself has collapsed in real terms - 15 years ago it was 40% higher than today, the political pressure to remove it has never been higher, I’m expecting Musk to start attacking it more overtly soon.
Not precisely what I had in mind from the term "decent".
ps. I know that for most users of Spotify, the above description of the service doesn't correspond to their reality. But it is an accurate description of the service, nevertheless.
From the user perspective Spotify is indeed “decent”. On-demand, unlimited access to essentially all music for a flat fee.
But switching the definition of “decent” to what its effects on society are seems unfair. It’s not like the price gouging cable business model has avoided race to the bottom reality TV either.
Also, as a side note: HN is a generally US-centric (and more broadly anglophone) context. The word "decent" in english currently has some related but not trivial to distinguish meanings. There's a British english version (now spreading into American english, certainly among younger cohorts) which equates roughly to "quality". There's also a version that is more related to some sense of morality. A "decent person" isn't so much about what they will do, as what they won't. There's the version used in the question "Are you decent?", asked before entering a room. This is partly why I asked what the OP meant.
If both of us pay to see a film in a movie theater, we're almost certainly talking an amount in excess of $20, potentially higher than $30 and not inconceivably over $40.
From my POV, a streaming service has to provide us with 1 film's worth of "decent" entertainment per month to be "worthwhile". Although all of them occasionally fail to do that in a given month, I don't think any of them fail to hit the "12 film's worth" over the course of a year.