I read the article, and nothing in there seems to be a valid criticism of Kagi as a search engine. It’s all about the founder not understood GDPR, or how Kagi wasted money on free t-shirts, or the writers personal opinion on AI.
This is largely an opinion piece. It has merit as such, but please don’t take this article as factual journalism.
I think the author makes that clear early and repeatedly and it isn’t ever framed as anything else than a walk through their thought process. I’m surprised you even felt this comment necessary. The article anchors heavily on privacy as a focus, and if you don’t care about that so much then all you have to worry about is a company that spends a couple hundred k of their startup money on t-shirts.
So…even if their search is perfect, and you don’t care that they really just want to charge you for search while they use you to train their AI, it is a paid service, so criticism of their ability to manage money is valid as an overall product review too though.
I agree with you. I just felt it necessary to inform those that read comments and not the article itself. Especially because (here’s my opinion) I feel that if you don’t pay for a product, then you ARE the product. Even if Kagi isn’t perfect, the payment model should be supported to foster this kind of internet.
I feel that if you don’t pay for a product, then you ARE the product. Even if Kagi isn’t perfect, the payment model should be supported to foster this kind of internet.
I agree with you, and I would just balance your statement out a bit and say that while the payment model should be supported, we should be wary of weak business models or predatory marketing that open up the door to just a different flavor of enshittification.
I read the article, and nothing in there seems to be a valid criticism of Kagi as a search engine. It’s all about the founder not understood GDPR, or how Kagi wasted money on free t-shirts, or the writers personal opinion on AI.
This is largely an opinion piece. It has merit as such, but please don’t take this article as factual journalism.
I think the author makes that clear early and repeatedly and it isn’t ever framed as anything else than a walk through their thought process. I’m surprised you even felt this comment necessary. The article anchors heavily on privacy as a focus, and if you don’t care about that so much then all you have to worry about is a company that spends a couple hundred k of their startup money on t-shirts.
So…even if their search is perfect, and you don’t care that they really just want to charge you for search while they use you to train their AI, it is a paid service, so criticism of their ability to manage money is valid as an overall product review too though.
I agree with you. I just felt it necessary to inform those that read comments and not the article itself. Especially because (here’s my opinion) I feel that if you don’t pay for a product, then you ARE the product. Even if Kagi isn’t perfect, the payment model should be supported to foster this kind of internet.
I agree with you, and I would just balance your statement out a bit and say that while the payment model should be supported, we should be wary of weak business models or predatory marketing that open up the door to just a different flavor of enshittification.
Yeah I had to stop reading because they started bashing the people behind Kagi instead of the actual product.
The product has been working great for me. As for the founder, well I’m minding my own business.