[HN Gopher] Brave launches private search ads
___________________________________________________________________
Brave launches private search ads
Author : jarsin
Score : 107 points
Date : 2022-12-01 17:05 UTC (5 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (brave.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (brave.com)
| pocketarc wrote:
| Ads seem to be a modern virus that infects everything. Everyone
| who claims "no ads", eventually turns their back on that once
| they get big enough, even companies with more than enough money
| from their own products (e.g. Apple, Netflix). I've never seen
| anything so powerful. I guess it comes down to "no business would
| say no to free money", but it really is incredible.
| twhb wrote:
| I felt this way for a while, but I'd like to offer another
| angle: maybe it's like saying "Every company eventually hires
| tall people. Some have no tall people, but it's just a matter
| of time. Tall people are really an unstoppable force." The
| missing piece is also observing short people (ad-free
| offerings), which you'd notice are not being eliminated, are
| also prevalent, and also "infect" everything. I think the
| unstoppable force being felt here is just statistics: ads are
| often an option, companies make a lot of decisions, it's
| statistically inevitable that some of those will be ads, unless
| the company has some strong aversion to ads, which most don't.
| Apocryphon wrote:
| What 15 years of ZIRP does to a mfer
| paulcole wrote:
| Did Apple or Brave ever say "no ads"?
|
| In the case of Brave (and every business), somebody's got to
| hand money to someone in order to keep the lights on.
| derefr wrote:
| Brave (the browser) has a built-in ad-blocker, the existence
| of which could be taken as an implicit stance by its creators
| on how they feel about ads.
| paulcole wrote:
| I'm not asking how you think the creators feel about ads.
| Did Brave as a company ever say that their product would be
| free of ads? If so, what was their plan for not going out
| of business?
| smt88 wrote:
| > _an implicit stance by its creators on how they feel
| about ads_
|
| Like Apple and AdBlock, the stance is that they want to
| sell their own ads in the spaces where they're blocking
| other people's
| Semaphor wrote:
| The browser also has a built-in ad-replacer which tells you
| even more about how they feel about ads.
| hunterb123 wrote:
| No they don't. They don't replace ads, that's a lie, stop
| repeating it here please.
|
| The Brave rewards are system OS text notifications that
| you can OPT IN to.
|
| In no way do they replace banner ads on websites.
| skinnymuch wrote:
| They could have meant when Brave swapped affiliate links
| before the backlash had them backtrack. Which was a wild
| thing to do. Blocking ads in your browser while charging
| to not show ads is also pretty wild. Why doesn't their ad
| blocker block their ads?
| hunterb123 wrote:
| I doubt that. They said replace ads, not add affiliates,
| those are different words entirely. The "ad replacing" is
| a common lie.
|
| Just don't use Brave search, the separate product. Or you
| know, add the blocking rules yourself to the ad blocker,
| that works. Or you know, pay the $3 dollars to support
| the thing you use.
|
| Most of the people complaining here don't actually care
| about this. This is all just a proxy war to go against
| Eich for his beliefs. It happens every Brave thread,
| pretty transparent and pathetic.
| kleer001 wrote:
| And, from what I understand, Ads don't really "work" inasmuch
| as they're very high output to very low return.
|
| Small motile cells in many species are used in a reproductive
| strategy very much like ads.
|
| Tee-hee.
| [deleted]
| glitchc wrote:
| Companies throw a lot of money at ads. Far more than individual
| consumers can muster. It's the difference between grass-roots
| donations and institutional funding.
| spaniard89277 wrote:
| They have a paid option. It's paying or ads. Running a search
| engine is not free. Somebody has to pay for it.
| rabuse wrote:
| That's not the problem. The problem is they sold their
| service as one thing, and then completely switch on the users
| down the line, instead of being honest upfront.
| puchatek wrote:
| And what was the thing you thought you were buying?
| trs8080 wrote:
| It was free, so they never sold it and nobody ever bought
| it. Companies often times need to pivot or introduce
| pricing to their products to survive. Would rather pay a
| modest fee to ensure that Brave continues as an alternative
| to the major browsers vs them running out of money and
| shutting down.
| jjulius wrote:
| >It was free, so they never sold it and nobody ever
| bought it.
|
| I mean, OP's not wrong. The phrase doesn't have to
| specifically mean an exchange of goods for money - can
| sell you on an idea, for instance. They "sold you" on the
| idea of using Brave by being very anti-ad. Now that you
| "bought it" and are hooked, they'd like some money.
| soundnote wrote:
| They've been very upfront that Brave Search will have ads
| one day in my experience.
| ramesh31 wrote:
| >Ads seem to be a modern virus that infects everything.
| Everyone who claims "no ads", eventually turns their back on
| that once they get big enough, even companies with more than
| enough money from their own products (e.g. Apple, Netflix).
|
| TBF at least it's better than the status quo of the late 90's
| to early 2000s, when the revenue model was malware and _actual_
| viruses rather than ad supported.
| autoexec wrote:
| > TBF at least it's better than the status quo of the late
| 90's to early 2000s, when the revenue model was malware and
| actual viruses rather than ad supported.
|
| Back then we called software that phoned home to check for
| updates spyware and it was to be avoided. The very idea that
| a random offline program on my system would know when I was
| connected to the internet, and would be collecting my IP
| address was unacceptable. Now it's standard practice.
|
| The revenue model back then was shareware. You get the
| software, it mostly works, and you send a check to some PO
| box to get a full version. It wasn't terrible. I don't
| remember too many companies outright shipping malware and
| when they did people were rightly pissed off (Sony's rootkit,
| or BonziBuddy for example)
|
| What we had were lots of ad filled websites hosting shareware
| and it was often the ads that were infecting people, although
| some sites did inject malware into the downloads.
| zagrebian wrote:
| Modern? When I grew up in the '90s, ads were everywhere: in the
| magazines I was reading, on TV, on billboards, in the mail. How
| can you call ads a modern virus?
| autoexec wrote:
| Ads aren't a new thing, but the it's been allowed to spread
| unchecked and unregulated in ways that were simply not
| possible in the 90s causing new problems.
| squarefoot wrote:
| The market eventually became saturated with products and
| services; today there are a lot more of them than pockets that
| can or will purchase them, therefore they fight to occupy the
| spots where people can notice them first, knowing that whoever
| comes after won't sell. This is a train wreck waiting to happen
| since there are no signs that it could self-limit in the
| immediate future; products and services sellers will eventually
| fight for every possible still free space to put ads into and
| win potential users attention; it will simply become worse and
| worse, unless someone invents consumerism with some limits
| built in, which in today's culture is deeply frowned upon.
| btbuildem wrote:
| HN could do a better title, it seems almost like it's clickbait.
| The original article title is "Brave debuts privacy-preserving
| ads in its search engine" - so the HN title kind of implies the
| opposite.
|
| I think paying for content / services is the only way out of..
| this. This thing we're in where Advertiser is King. This
| ecosystem that breeds dark patterns and skews all discourse
| towards the uninformed and adversarial.
| dang wrote:
| What would be a better (i.e. more accurate and neutral) title?
|
| The article's title sounds too pressreleasey to me, which is a
| form of misleading+linkbait in its own right, so it was a legit
| title to rewrite, given HN's rule (" _Please use the original
| title, unless it is misleading or linkbait_ " -
| https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html).
| charlesrocket wrote:
| As private as their tor
| kernal wrote:
| Brave, the FTX of browsers.
| INeedMoreRam wrote:
| Comments like yours, reminds me of the trash on Reddit.
|
| Let me guess you use Chrome?
| kernal wrote:
| The duplicitous behavior and business model of Brave is
| trash.
|
| >Let me guess you use Chrome?
|
| Speaking of trash reddit comments...
| BigFreeWilly wrote:
| From the article:
|
| During this beta phase, Brave Search users will see text-based
| ads in search results. However, during the beta period, Brave
| users who have opted-in to Brave Private Ads and are using the
| latest version of Brave will not see Search ads, since these new
| ad units are not yet eligible for BAT earnings. We're actively
| working to integrate Brave Rewards with Brave Search, and hope to
| make Search ads eligible for BAT earnings in the coming months.
| dhaavi wrote:
| Their example screenshot shows their own VPN as the first result
| for "VPN". Reminds me of this other search engine.
| thijser wrote:
| The "other" search engine (you mean Google with Google
| maps/shopping recommendations etc. right?) didn't buy ads in
| its own system competing on a level playing field with
| competitors, but created new space for its own products that
| was inaccessible to any competitors.
|
| In other words, Brave seems to be doing the right thing here by
| promoting its own products in the same way that any competing
| product can.
| three_seagrass wrote:
| Google Shopping is just paid search ads with pictures. I'm
| sure Brave will add that functionality soon too.
| bogwog wrote:
| Don't assume good intentions when malice is equally likely...
| at least in this technology world we live in. Companies that
| are actually on the user's side are very rare, so you're more
| likely to be correct (and safe) by never giving tech
| companies the benefit of the doubt.
| comte7092 wrote:
| Possibly a completely dumb idea, but I've wondered for a while if
| there would be value in building an open data web index,
| something which would allow competing providers to offer
| different search algorithms on top of.
|
| I don't know enough about the technical details about building a
| search engine, so perhaps this isn't feasible because the
| algorithm and the index need to be tightly coupled to each other,
| but my hunch is that it would be beneficial for the web if there
| were an open street map of search indexes.
| pythux wrote:
| You might like Goggles (also a Brave feature):
| https://search.brave.com/help/goggles
|
| Disclaimer: I work at Brave.
| musk_micropenis wrote:
| A lot of angry comments in here, but the post says there's an ad-
| free paid version,
|
| > Ads will give users the option to use our independent search
| engine with ads that don't track them, or to sign up for ad-free
| paid search
|
| Are you willing to put your money where your mouth is? Or do you
| expect software companies to work for free? (Presumably not the
| companies you work for).
| derefr wrote:
| Some users -- possibly Brave's core target audience -- might
| complain that there's no way to remain anonymous in this flow:
| either you allow Brave to leak your info to advertisers, or you
| allow Brave to leak your info to Stripe in the payment flow.
| There's (currently) no way to pay for a Brave Premium account
| with crypto or through any other anonymous mechanism.
| musk_micropenis wrote:
| > either you allow Brave to leak your info to advertisers
|
| Can you expand on this? According to the article the ads are
| privacy-preserving but I'm open to hearing otherwise. There's
| not a lot of detail in the article.
| INeedMoreRam wrote:
| Assuming we can trust Brave, the article clearly states:
| "Brave Search only uses your search query, country, and
| device type to show you ads, and does not keep any kind of
| profile of your searches."
|
| My question to somebody who understands this more than me,
| by collecting query, country, device type, is that enough
| info to identify users?
|
| Doesn't Brave automatically get User Agent strings, too?
| autoexec wrote:
| > My question to somebody who understands this more than
| me, by collecting query, country, device type, is that
| enough info to identify users?
|
| Collecting search queries alone is enough to identify
| users. see:
| https://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/09/technology/09aol.html
| fanso99 wrote:
| Unless they mean something non-conventional, a search
| query, country, and device type are not enough to do any
| fingerprinting reliably. Some would argue that if you
| live in a very small country (like Vatican City) and you
| are the only user who searches for some obscure query on
| a daily basis then that's enough to identify you. But on
| a global scale of a search engine - no, not enough.
| musk_micropenis wrote:
| Even if that is enough to identify users, you'd have to
| show evidence that that information is being handed to
| advertisers, which is what GP accused them of.
| SV_BubbleTime wrote:
| Because this is the entire internet model, it is not at
| all a reach to assume there is a privacy issue.
|
| Rather, I think you should have to prove that sending
| your search data OR having your credentials tied to your
| credit card are privacy preserving.
|
| The burden of proof is on Brave. Not skeptical or
| cautious users.
| prmoustache wrote:
| Where? I don't see any account management in
| https://search.brave.com/
| derefr wrote:
| Following the link from TFA (under "Search Premium") leads to
| https://account.brave.com/?intent=checkout&product=search
| prmoustache wrote:
| Thanks 3$/month looks like a decent price to me. I might
| give it a try although I am already running an ad blocker
| on my browser.
| paulcole wrote:
| Is there any amount for which you would've instantly
| signed up and started paying or would even $1 a month
| still be something you "might give a try" (read: won't do
| in a million years)?
| blacksmith_tb wrote:
| At $1 it would be a no-brainer for me, but one possible
| argument I can see is that a flat fee is a funny
| arrangement here - I pay $3/mo if I make 100 searches a
| day, or 1, or none. If the idea is that it would only be
| fair to Brave to pay them for what they aren't making by
| showing me ads, you might think it would make more sense
| to have me pay for exactly how much they lose, not less
| or more?
| prmoustache wrote:
| I won't pay for anything if that doesn't provide me
| decent search results. This is where the "might give a
| try" comes from and I would definitely try the version
| with ads first because I would hate creating an account
| and giving my card number to another service if I am not
| 100% sure I am interested. I would also want to know if I
| need to pay that amont per user in my household or if I
| would need as many accounts per family member so that the
| quality of our search results aren't harmed by the
| difference in interests/history.
|
| 3$/month seems decent to me if search results are
| improved over google. The 10$/month that kagi ask me for
| are a bit harder to swallow. Not in itself but
| additionned to all the other 10ish bucks services I am
| already subscribed to (streaming, backup, etc). There is
| simply a limit/month I am willing to spend on the whole
| package and if I spend say n$/month on a search engine
| per user I will unsubscribe to other services of the same
| cost. And this is something I may have to negociate with
| my partner.
|
| The good thing is it is easier to move from and to a
| paying search engine than say, an instant messaging
| service.
| paulcole wrote:
| Jesus Christ. First it was $3/month seems like a decent
| price that you might try if you weren't already running
| an ad blocker. Then it's there's no price cheap enough if
| it's not decent search results. Then it's well I need to
| know how many people per account and then it's I'd have
| to talk it over with my partners.
|
| You can just say there's a 0% chance you'd pay $1 a month
| and that you'd always have an excuse for why _this_
| option isn't good enough for your high standards.
| prmoustache wrote:
| hmmm no.
|
| What is the use of paying a service if the search engine
| results are so crap you will use something else in the
| end?
| paulcole wrote:
| > Thanks 3$/month looks like a decent price to me. I
| might give it a try
|
| From everything you said since, it sounds like you had no
| intention of giving it a try.
| 2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote:
| Can I just get unobtrusive relevant ads without tracking? I
| didn't mind the search ads on Google back in the day before
| they got egregious and greedy.
| secretj wrote:
| So the ads you see are just based on country, type of device
| (windows,linux,macos,android or ios), and your search term,
| which is the minimum you really need for relevance. But these
| are not kept in any sort of tracking profile and Brave
| doesn't know anything about you, or queries across sessions.
| And unlike most of the search engines out there right now, we
| are motivated to ensure that the ads do not become a mess
| that buries organic results.
| criddell wrote:
| Why is type of device needed for relevance? I can think of
| specific searches where _maybe_ it could matter, but
| generally I don 't think it does.
| ericholscher wrote:
| Glad to see other folks investing in ethical advertising. It's
| something we've been working on for a long time over at
| https://ethicalads.io/ -- and it's an important step forward in
| improving how ads are served. With the advances in ML, we're
| investing in content-based targeting, which we can do as a
| display network. But search ads have so much context built in,
| they don't need to track you.
|
| > A lot of angry comments in here, but the post says there's an
| ad-free paid version,
|
| People in the comments here who have expectations that products
| be free, but also not include ads, are a continual problem with
| the discourse around this stuff. It's quite tiring and
| repetitive. Brave is even giving you the option to opt out of
| ads by paying a very reasonable $3/mo. I'm not sure what else
| you could ask for -- ads that don't surveil you, and the option
| to pay a reasonable amount to opt out of them.
| Faint wrote:
| Would you trust Google's ( or other search provider's) ads more,
| if they had a separately browsable "classifieds" site, not unlike
| Craigslist, that the search ads would be search results from
| (reach modified by how much the ads were paid with, ofc.).
| Anyway, when you saw an add, you could click through it like now,
| or click to browse a relevant section of the classifieds site.
| Which would also work as a catalog of all paid and also unpaid
| ads the search provider carried?
| GaryNumanVevo wrote:
| Is anyone surprised? Brave was trying to push their own ad
| network years ago with the BAT (Brave Attention Token) to "pay"
| websites for eyes on their page. And guess how they paid for it?
| By running their own ads over native web content.
|
| Edit: Not sure why people are downvoting this. Brave announced
| the BAT in 2017 and they outlined their plans for an alternative
| ad network then.
| https://twitter.com/AttentionToken/status/844929203438964736...
| satvikpendem wrote:
| After all the Brave controversies [0] I'm not sure why anyone
| uses Brave anymore. They took creators' money while ostensibly
| "collecting" it for them, and they inserted their own affiliate
| links when you visited certain sites. It's just shady behavior
| all around. I mean, when you have your own "Controversies"
| section on Wikipedia, you know there's something wrong.
|
| Especially with Manifest v3 looming which would kill modern ad
| blockers, I see no reason not to use Firefox. Sure, Brave and
| other Chromium browsers might say they'll fork Chromium, but how
| long will that last, really? It's no joke to maintain a fork.
|
| [0]
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brave_(web_browser)#Controvers...
| therealmarv wrote:
| - Brave blocks you more against Fingerprinting than Firefox
| with uBlock. https://coveryourtracks.eff.org/
|
| - Brave uses Chromium and uses better isolation and sandbox
| than Firefox. Especially on Android.
|
| - Brave has Adblock built-in natively. It's written in Rust, so
| Manifest v3 will not affect it.
| https://github.com/brave/adblock-rust
|
| - Brave is profitable on itself and not dependent on search
| engines money like Firefox.
|
| Not saying it's the best but I decided against Firefox because
| the technical and financial foundation looks better on Brave
| for me.
| logicalmonster wrote:
| > After all the Brave controversies
|
| "Brave's controversies" are not really about Brave.
|
| Brave as a company is not above criticism and should be harshly
| gone after for their mistakes when they do anything less than
| perfect with regards to privacy or anything else. I think
| they've done over 90% of things right, but have screwed up a
| small portion of the complicated stuff (new browser, new online
| advertising models, and search ecosystem) they're trying to
| pull off. And yes, they've made a few errors along the way.
|
| That said, the "Brave controversies" are not actually about
| Brave's real merits as a company, but are mostly about a long-
| standing grudge regarding Brendan Eich's political beliefs. A
| certain crowd will not give Eich an inch to ever succeed and
| will continuously rip even the most minor and inane issue
| solely to destroy what he represents.
|
| I'm really sick of people pretending that the "Brave
| controversies" are actually about Brave as a company and not
| overwhelmingly about the larger ongoing culture war that's been
| waged.
| autoexec wrote:
| > "Brave's controversies" are not really about Brave.
|
| Which of Brave's controversies listed on Wikipedia aren't
| about Brave because they are about Brendan Eich's political
| beliefs? I have no idea what his political beliefs are, but
| while I can accept the possibility that they may put Brave
| under additional scrutiny the problems people have had with
| Brave are real.
|
| I think it'd be wrong to dismiss their controversies as being
| purely the product of a "culture war" even if some people's
| hate for Brendan might help promote awareness of those same
| controversies.
| satvikpendem wrote:
| I don't care about Eich himself, I view creators as separate
| from their creations, so I'm surely not who you're talking
| about. I would rather that people use a non Chromium browser
| over a Chromium one, and honestly, Chromium itself is less
| shady than Brave due to the shady behavior I mentioned. I
| mean, man in the middle attacking your own browser, really?
| skinnymuch wrote:
| Will manifest 3 really kill modern ad blockers? Like adguard
| and ublock won't work as they do now in some upcoming
| Blink/Chromium version?
| SeanAnderson wrote:
| They will work but not as well.
| NoGravitas wrote:
| Correct: they will work about as well as DNS-based
| adblockers. The "cosmetic blocks" you depend on in uBlock
| Origin to block same-origin and in-page elements, the
| things that make Fandom wikis usable, will not work.
| satvikpendem wrote:
| That is correct. The creator of uBlock Origin, gorhill, made
| a post about it [0], and uBlock Origin actually works
| _better_ in Firefox than in other browsers apparently [1].
|
| [0] https://github.com/uBlockOrigin/uBlock-
| issues/issues/338#iss...
|
| [1] https://github.com/gorhill/uBlock/wiki/uBlock-Origin-
| works-b...
| pueblo3616 wrote:
| Do you work for free? A company has to make money to survive and
| pay its employees.
|
| Brave blocks third-party ads, not all ads.
| bogwog wrote:
| > A company has to make money to survive and pay its employees.
|
| So why do they give their product away for free? To lure
| naive/optimistic people in so they can be exploited later? Why
| _should_ a company like that survive?
| pueblo3616 wrote:
| Yeah sure, rant more on Brave, and stay silent about Google.
| bogwog wrote:
| So you're saying that anything Brave does is okay because
| they're not Google? FYI Brave isn't the only company that
| isn't Google.
| Chabsff wrote:
| Maybe it's simply just not commercially viable in any way shape
| or form to build an ethically responsible web browser and
| distribute it for free.
| Proven wrote:
| Can Brave ad blocker block Brave ads?
| dhaavi wrote:
| "can" or "does"? ;)
|
| I guess it does not. How far will they go though? Will uBlock
| in Brave be able to block the ads?
| princevegeta89 wrote:
| Maybe, but I would not trust it. Just install uBlock Origin and
| you're free to completely turn off "Brave Shields" or whatever
| it is called.
| rglullis wrote:
| I asked the same thing to Luke Mulks (VP of Business at Brave)
| about an year ago when search got out of Beta and he "promised"
| that the behavior from the built-in ad blocker would be the
| same as it is any other page. IOW, the ad blocker does _not
| block_ first-party ads unless you set the browser to
| "aggressively block ads and trackers".
| orangeoxidation wrote:
| It does not.
|
| I find the wild, anti-competitive cross product "synergy" the
| big tech companies are employing just as concerning as privacy
| violations.
|
| (E.g. Google search pushing Chrome and other services, Chrome
| sync logging users into YouTube, Android, Windows pushing One
| Drive, Apple music not paying the Apple store tax, Facebook
| harvesting WhatsApp data etc.)
|
| Brave joining those practices leaves an ugly taste.
| INeedMoreRam wrote:
| But will using UBlock Origin, pihole, Quad9 DNS, and a VPN
| block ads?
|
| I think the answer is yes, since I am yet to see a Brave ad.
| hunterb123 wrote:
| You are wrong, the built-in ad blocker does block first party
| ads in aggressive mode or if you manually add a rule.
| w0ts0n wrote:
| Yes. Same rules as google. When in aggressive mode, shields
| will block first party ads. No exceptions.
| i13e wrote:
| If you don't like the ads I'm sure there will be ways to block
| them. Every search engine has ads, StartPage, DDG, Google, etc...
| None have an option to pay. I don't see what's wrong with them
| keeping the lights on, every startup can't burn money forever.
| pretext wrote:
| Genuinely interested why do people keep using Brave instead of
| LibreWolf or ungoogled-chromium?
|
| EDIT: LibreWolf Browser: A custom version of Firefox, focused on
| privacy, security and freedom. https://librewolf.net/
|
| ungoogled-chromium: A lightweight approach to removing Google web
| service dependency https://github.com/ungoogled-
| software/ungoogled-chromium
| satvikpendem wrote:
| Or Firefox. Especially with Manifest v3 looming.
| soundnote wrote:
| Brave Shields won't care about Manifest v3 even the tiniest
| bit. The shields are not a browser extension so extension
| APIs don't have any bearing on their functionality.
| pretext wrote:
| LibreWolf is just a Firefox with telemetry removed.
| satvikpendem wrote:
| Even better, I might switch to that.
| INeedMoreRam wrote:
| Correct me if I am wrong, but can't we just remove all
| Firefox telemetry by unchecking these options in Privacy &
| Security:
|
| 1) Allow Firefox to send technical and interaction data to
| Mozilla
|
| 2) Allow Firefox to make personalized extension
| recommendations
|
| 3) Allow Firefox to install and run studies
|
| 4) Allow Firefox to send backlogged crash reports on your
| behalf
|
| I understand they're selected by default so they're
| collecting data on many unaware users, but for anyone on
| HN, I am confident they have probably deselected all of
| them.
| lbwtaylor wrote:
| It just works.
|
| It blocks almost all ads. It has a simple button to turn ad
| blocking off when I need to use websites that don't work with
| ad blockers. I don't need to fiddle with an extension.
|
| I can use it on android without effort.
|
| This is about brave search, which I have never used.
|
| I don't use the brave homepage, so I never saw the homepage ads
| that folks complained about.
|
| HN seems to hate Brave for some reason. But it has worked
| perfectly for years. I don't care if it's perfect privacy --
| not sure I ever felt Brave promised that.
|
| I have never heard of the browsers you mention. I tried to use
| Chromium for a while, but you have to find distributions that
| include basic features and it was a hassle. Not a big hassle,
| but made me stick with Brave.
| enpojames wrote:
| I haven't seen any ads so far. Must be early.
| secretj wrote:
| Yeah our volume is intentionally small right now, as we closely
| monitor performance. We'll be scaling up as we feel good about
| what we see.
| TremendousJudge wrote:
| What's the idea here? I was under the impression that one of the
| selling points of Brave is that you don't get ads when browsing.
| Doesn't this go against that?
| mattboardman wrote:
| Brave has never tried to be ad free. Instead the goal is to
| encourage less intrusive and more benign ads.
| deltree7 wrote:
| Only a HNer will twist themselves in a logic knot claiming "I
| prefer to be bombarded with ads that aren't relevant to me"
| mattboardman wrote:
| This reply appears to be both a strawman (I never said
| anything about my preferences) and an ad hominem attack
| (Diminishing my comment bc of who I am).
| Barrin92 wrote:
| hard to see how that meaningfully differentiates them from
| everyone else given that this is what all the ad platforms
| seem to be moving towards with topic/cohort based ads and
| third party cookies on the way out.
| antonok wrote:
| Brave's been blocking third-party cookies from the
| beginning; Firefox and Safari followed in 2019 and 2020
| respectively. Third party cookies might not have been on
| the way out if Brave hadn't taken that first step already.
| mattboardman wrote:
| I guess they have failed in marketing the differentiation
| then (if there is one). I was just clarifying the product
| in question, never promised an ad free product.
| pbhjpbhj wrote:
| It's Freemium, you pay $3/month for no ads, or you get ad-
| supported search _that is privacy focussed_ for free. They're
| running their own index, it costs money.
|
| The question is whether this is better than Google's offering
| ... to me it sounds like it is so long as the results stand up
| to scrutiny.
|
| Brave's USP always seems to have been meaning the web work
| practically without profiteering and maintaining a strong user
| privacy focus. It always seems to have had payment for content
| as a part of their model, and so payment for search seems to
| fit well in that framework.
|
| I admit it does seems to be a climb down for those who see
| Brave as "free + no-ads".
| i_am_jl wrote:
| Brave's key selling point was that it respects privacy, and it
| blocked ads because web advertising is usually antithetical to
| privacy.
|
| I imagine their idea here is that "ads aren't bad if they
| respect privacy/don't weaken security", but I'm thinking most
| Brave users are going to disagree.
| iLoveOncall wrote:
| I've rarely seen a product become so bad so quickly. Brave
| started out with great promises and has consistently under-
| delivered since.
| [deleted]
| prepend wrote:
| What problems do you have that gotten worse?
|
| I don't use Brave search very much but it seems equivalent to
| duck duck go and its results are ok.
| iLoveOncall wrote:
| By "product" I meant the whole Brave ecosystem actually.
| hunterb123 wrote:
| Okay what problems in the whole ecosystem do you mean?
|
| You stated your opinion, but you forgot to add your
| reasoning.
| iLoveOncall wrote:
| What this guy said basically:
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=33820597
| all2 wrote:
| Generally I've found brave's results to be better on a wide
| swath of topics. Long form, (mostly) well written pages are
| top of the stack. Image search and video search lags behind
| other search engines significantly, though.
| Chabsff wrote:
| the Brave browser could have been Chromium with uBlock Origin
| pre-packaged with it. That's it. That's all it ever needed to
| be.
|
| Looking around the codebase, it's _filled_ with eyebrow-raising
| things like direct integration with specific crypto exchanges.
| Heck, it _still_ has a whole automatic affiliate fraud feature
| present in the code, but disabled by default.
|
| The truth is, the mission statement is not commercially viable,
| because it was always trivially achievable as a non-profit
| project.
| franczesko wrote:
| I've been testing Brave search for some time now (switched from
| DDG after 2y) and I have to say that I'm very impressed with the
| quality of results to the degree that I'm wondering if they are
| simply scraping Google.
| travisgriggs wrote:
| This statement (second paragraph)
|
| > Ads are a key part of search engines, helping to facilitate the
| free and open exchange of information on the Web, and to connect
| users to helpful products and services related to their search
| terms.
|
| Is just non sequitur for me. It's said in such a smooth way, in
| such a gaslight-ish way, that your tempted to just accept it.
|
| But it actually makes no sense to me. I get what ads are key to:
| revenue, keeping the lights on, that sort of thing. But I don't
| see how they increase the free and open exchange of information
| on the web. If I sat down with a troubled couple who was having a
| hard time communicating, I wouldn't periodically interrupt and
| say "let's pause a moment for an ad. I think that's going to
| really open up a better and more free exchange between the both
| of you."
|
| I also don't understand how it is helpful in helping me connect
| to products and services in a helpful way. An index (yellow
| pages) of what's available would help me search for a product. A
| rating system that wasn't gamed might help me make a selection
| that was best for me. But ads? We inherently distrust that we're
| being swayed/manipulated by them. I need to update the insulation
| in my attic, so I'm in the market to get some newer insulation.
| To wit, I've called a number of people I know who are in the
| insulation/builder business to get their information. Not a
| single one said "well, here's my opinion, but what you really
| need to do is check the ads, they're going to be your best source
| of information about how to proceed."
| 1vuio0pswjnm7 wrote:
| "An index (yellow pages) of what's available would help me
| search for a product."
|
| This is what "tech" companies are seeking to prevent. If the
| user has no idea of what's available, then the "tech" company
| can "suggest" its advertisers' products and services.
| "Recommendations" are supposed to be technologically
| indistinguishable from "search". Gaslighting indeed.
|
| But don't believe me. Get it from the horse's mouth. Read
| Google's brief in opposition in the Gonzalez case.
|
| https://www.supremecourt.gov/DocketPDF/21/21-1333/229391/202...
|
| Google wants the US Supreme Court to believe that
| recommendations systems and search engines are the same thing.1
| If the justices were born into the world of Google, Facebook
| and now TikTok, that argument might work. But a majority were
| born before the www existed. The difference between search and
| recommendations is obvious and significant.
|
| "Tech" companies, which produce no content themselves, want to
| recommend whatever gets "eyeballs", so they can keep the lights
| on by selling online advertising services. Popularity is the
| all-important metric. They want to run websites that serve
| hundreds of millions of people, relegating the rest of the
| web's sites to brief tangents, temporary distractions. Why.
| Because those conditions are optimal for advertising. For a
| variety of reasons, they are unable to satisfactorily filter,
| curate, censor, etc. the content they collect from others.
|
| This only works as a lucrative racket so long as the "tech"
| company cannot be sued for the content they take from others
| and use as bait to lure in users to be targeted with
| advertising. Generally, the preaviling interpretation of
| Section 230 has effectively prevented such litigation.
|
| If that interpretation changes, it could spell the end of this
| enormous racket. Big Tech would not be able to continue to
| profit from user-generated content by steering web users toward
| what is popular and creating large audiences attractive to
| advertisers. Smaller websites that produce their own content
| could again become relevant.
|
| In the past, I have had personal projects where I create an
| alternative way to explore the www, using a Yellow Pages type
| of process. The reason no one seems to care about this area
| anymore2 is not that such projects are infeasible or too
| challenging, it is that there is no financial incentive to
| pursue them. Big Tech has sold out the web. It is a sewer of
| low quality "content" and try-hard advertising, while the data
| collection, tracking and ad serving apparatus purchased with
| all that wasted ad spend is state of the art.
|
| 1. Because there is precedent that suggests 230 protects search
| engines. There is however no precedent that suggests it
| protects "recommendations".
|
| 2. I was recently looking at the original sources for WAIS on a
| simtel mirror. All the pieces were there. The www had so much
| potential. At least Brewster Kahle went on to do something
| useful, the Internet Archive. I still sometimes use z39.50
| today to do searches on library databases. To me it represents
| a time before advertising infected the computer networks and
| eventually the internet.
| squeaky-clean wrote:
| > If I sat down with a troubled couple who was having a hard
| time communicating, I wouldn't periodically interrupt and say
| "let's pause a moment for an ad. I think that's going to really
| open up a better and more free exchange between the both of
| you."
|
| Couples counseling isn't free, maybe with ads they could be.
|
| I mean obviously not, but only because a professional counselor
| can only see about 8 couples per day while a search engine can
| serve several billion.
|
| Brave is saying it in a very PR / marketing speak way, but I
| get the underlying point. Instead of funding our service with
| your own money, let some big companies fund it in exchange for
| your attention.
|
| The unspoken issue (well it gets spoken on HN a lot) is that
| your searchers no longer become your customers. So it's
| advantageous to improve your service for the sake of the
| advertisers to the detriment of the searchers, at least until a
| threshold that would make the majority of them quit. It only
| benefits "free and open exchange of information" for as long as
| that also benefits the advertisers.
| SebastianKra wrote:
| I hate that ads are now seen as a necessary evil for funding
| free access to services. The money still comes from you, just
| through the purchase of products.
|
| What's worse, if you pay for YouTube Premium or Kagi, you're
| effectively paying for your content twice. No wonder, poorer
| people can't afford that.
|
| I guess you could frame it like this: "Company are
| overcharging us by insane amounts anyways, so at least some
| of that money goes back into something useful through ads."
| yucky wrote:
| > But I don't see how they increase the free and open exchange
| of information on the web.
|
| I think I can help explain. Almost all search engine users
| (~95%+) only scan the first 10-20 results on a query, and those
| results are dominated by sites that have the budget to spend on
| SEO. Buying ads gives other voices a chance to break through.
|
| Depending on the niche it can be far more expensive to be on
| the first page of search results through long term SEO efforts
| than shorter term, campaign based PPC (paid ads) efforts. This
| is particularly true for search terms where it may not be known
| how valuable a top 5 or top 10 position is. It could take
| months or years and a ton of cash to rank for certain things
| through SEO efforts alone, only to discover the traffic isn't
| worth it.
|
| Alternatively, you could test that with PPC and discover
| quickly and far cheaper if you should spend your time and money
| trying to rank for something. This then gives smaller voices a
| chance to amplify.
| AlotOfReading wrote:
| _In actual practice_ those ad slots usually end up dominated
| by companies looking to take advantage of uninformed
| consumers (e.g. [1]). Sponsored search slots also introduce
| the perverse incentive of forcing people to pay for ads on
| their own results so that potential customers don 't get
| stolen away by competitors' ads.
|
| Let's give a more real-world example, like say a search for
| 'fine dining restaurants' in Oakland. We'll use ad-ridden
| yelp as our example [2]. My expectation is that if quality
| restaurants are being given voices is that the sponsored list
| should be filled with Michelin starred or at least bib
| gourmand / equivalent restaurants. Instead the entire first
| page is sponsored breweries / bars and a burger joint (on a
| non-adblocking test browser). I have to scroll down to the
| initially-hidden search results to see Commis at #3.
|
| [1] https://doi.org/10.1086/676333
|
| [2] https://www.yelp.com/search?find_desc=Fine+Dining+Restaur
| ant...
| ipaddr wrote:
| Your expectations may not match reality. The target market
| for fine dining are not the type of people looking through
| search results on the internet for suggestions for dining.
| They will hear about through conversation or be introduced
| through a private network. If you have to advertise you
| already are attracting the wrong crowd.
| uoaei wrote:
| Ads give other voices _with money to spend_ a chance to break
| through. This is very far from anything relevant either to
| "free" or "open" web interactions.
| [deleted]
| hunterb123 wrote:
| You've never opened a newspaper up to the classifieds? Those
| are ads.
|
| You may not know of a tree cutting service until you look
| there.
|
| You may not know where to get a car part until you look there.
|
| Having ads riddled throughout the internet is one thing, but
| having a directory where ads are supposed to be is another.
|
| Yes billboards are annoying, that doesn't make classifieds
| equal.
|
| (oh and you could just pay $3/mo or not use the service if you
| have no use for classifieds)
| ajsnigrutin wrote:
| But there's a difference if you're searching for a tree
| cutting service in the yellow pages, or if you're googling a
| chainsaw sharpener, and you get a tree cutting service ad.
| ipaddr wrote:
| Is there? You are searching for keywords and paid
| information is presented usually in some order that puts
| paid items near the top and more visible.
| ajsnigrutin wrote:
| But i'm searching for a sharpener, not a tree cutting
| service.
|
| When I open youtube and click on the chainsaw sharpening
| tutorial video, i wasnt to see that video, not 6 ads for
| something i didn't search for and don't need.
| dismalpedigree wrote:
| If ads are truly so useful, perhaps they should withhold them
| unless you pay $3/mo.
|
| Oh right. They are a negative user experience and bring
| revenue in without providing any value (possibly negative
| value) to the user.
|
| Nothing groundbreaking here, but lets not pretend this is
| anything but a money grab.
| [deleted]
| ipaddr wrote:
| They do as most newspapers are not free at the newsstand.
| To get those local classified ads you have to pay.
|
| They can be a negative or positive depending on the ad and
| when/where you see it
|
| Some people love to see new products and ads show those.
| squeaky-clean wrote:
| There are some free ones but they're also 90% ads :p
|
| Then again I used to subscribe to tech magazines back in
| the day, and you can think of the articles and reviews as
| well thought out and curated ads. (At least the good
| magazines).
| SoftTalker wrote:
| Yep, back when I was into photography (which was well
| before the web existed) I would buy photography magazines
| mainly for the ads. Same with the _Computer Shopper,_ it
| was almnost entirely ads and people paid for it.
| Animats wrote:
| Ads from the browser itself? Do not want.
| mberning wrote:
| I have been enjoying Kagi. Don't mind the $10 per month to
| support something that caters to me rather than advertisers.
| INeedMoreRam wrote:
| Did you create a new "bogus"email address when you signed up
| for their service to hide your identity?
|
| Or were you okay with giving them your real email address?
|
| I feel uncomfortable potentially having my searches linked to
| my real email and/or name.
| gabeio wrote:
| I don't but honestly I don't search for things often that I
| need anonymity, I use kagi more because it seems better than
| the other search engines at getting the results I care about
| at the top and not a huge amount of ads or junk posts at the
| top. They claim to keep the searches as anonymous as
| possible, and they have been through an audit so hopefully
| true.
| vile_wretch wrote:
| Not really an answer to your question but I have my password
| manager integrated with my email host and can generate a new
| masked email with one click when creating new accounts. Not
| sure how it is as far as privacy (Bitwarden can't read my
| email, only create new masked emails - the option to allow
| read access is provided however) but as far as being able to
| disable problematic addresses on a whim without changing my
| main is pretty great.
| hosteur wrote:
| Never mind the email address. If you pay them they have your
| real identity.
|
| This is really what prevents me from using them. Although the
| search does seem to be superb.
| grammers wrote:
| I prefer paying for services, e.g. Tutanota, Anonaddy, Bitwarden,
| Guardian. Why do people take everything on the web for free? Of
| course, companies need to make money - if not with subs, then
| with ads. What else should they do?
| ohCh6zos wrote:
| If you haven't checked out Kagi, it has been a pleasure to use.
| pndy wrote:
| No way to test it by yourself - you can try the provided
| examples; it relies on others indexes and mentions in
| documentation _" You can think of Kagi as a "search client""_.
| It requires an account in the first place and I can't see a
| word about pricing.
|
| Pass for me but maybe someone will be interested
| AlexAndScripts wrote:
| There's a pricing hyperlink on the site.
| bogwog wrote:
| Why does it matter where the indexes come from? As a user, I
| only care about the results.
|
| Also, idk if I'm grandfathered in to an old price or
| anything, but my subscription is $10/mo.
| mind-blight wrote:
| They seem really cool. But, I was reading the FAQ, and they
| claim it costs about $1 to process 80 searches. That seems
| extremely high. I would have expected that the up-front cost of
| creating and storing indexes is very expensive, but the cost of
| user searches to be so low that they're nearly negligible.
| Okay, it sounds like they lose money with each new added user
| gabeio wrote:
| I believe they are doing some search aggregation from
| multiple sources and from what they say they do not seem to
| be caching results much.
| danskeren wrote:
| API's that charge by usage usually have terms that prevent
| caching API results. This also applies to Bing:
|
| > You must use results you obtain through the Services only
| in Internet Search Experiences (as defined in the use and
| display requirements) and must not cache or copy results.
| (https://www.microsoft.com/en-us/bing/apis/legal)
|
| It's really unfortunate Microsoft doesn't provide a free
| API that require users to display ads, or at the very least
| make their ad network accessible to all.
| supermatt wrote:
| They are using google custom search and Bing search apis.
| They cost about ~$5 per 1000 queries - so thats 40c on the
| dollar already for those 80 queries. Thats just for a single
| "behind the scenes" query - and they sometimes perform
| multiple subqueries based on your "lens" configuration which
| inflates the cost further.
|
| They also have their own infra and team to support.
|
| I wouldnt call myself a search engine poweruser, but based on
| my usage, they are definitely losing money on those
| subscriptions.
| chomp wrote:
| I'll add to this, it's completely replaced my work search, and
| I haven't fallen back to a google search in months, even for
| very arcane Linux kernel internals. You can even manually
| prioritize certain sites, giving you a way to have a hand in
| building your own search experience.
| bogwog wrote:
| Kagi is excellent, and it's the only monthly subscription where
| I actually feel like I'm getting something of value.
|
| Even my Pandora subscription feels like I'm getting ripped off
| since I really only ever listen to the same songs anyways, and
| the app is a dumpster fire. Netflix/Disney+/Hulu/etc also suck
| since they just feel like I'm wasting money due to feuds
| between companies that having nothing to do with me. I have a
| Proton Mail subscription, and it's okay, but extremely
| overpriced for what I'm getting, while a cheaper mail service
| would potentially get my emails blocked from the big service
| providers because they think I'm a spammer. There are also apps
| that are requiring me to pay a monthly sub while offering
| nothing in return for it just because they can. My workout
| tracker app for example is exactly the same janky mess it was
| ~2 years ago, yet I've been paying $4/mo for it!
|
| ..but Kagi? It works great, it works reliably, and it works for
| _me_.
| james_pm wrote:
| Or, use DuckDuckGo which allows you to turn off ads without
| paying.
| Archipelagia wrote:
| Not the biggest fan of Brave myself, but they seem to actually
| get extra points in my eyes for adding the paid option. It's not
| like you can pay $3 to Google to get them to stop surveilling
| you.
|
| On a bigger note, monetizing search without ads seem to be a
| pretty tricky business model. Especially if you want to move
| beyond being a niche product; even an average HN reader would be
| hard to convince to pay for a regular subscription, so with the
| general public I can't imaging the hassle.
|
| What are other ways search engines could monetize without taking
| money either from users or from people that want to show
| something to them?
| greyface- wrote:
| Make it a 501(c)(3) non-profit, like the Internet Archive or
| Wikipedia.
| fsflover wrote:
| Or at least a Social Purpose Corporation like Purism.
| kevinventullo wrote:
| If search engines were considered important enough to be a
| public utility, one could be funded by taxpayer dollars. Now of
| course, search results can be heavily politicized, but I
| suppose the same is true of which books a library decides to
| carry.
| dymk wrote:
| Search engines are important, but they're funded quite well
| with ads, so why would anybody go through the effort to make
| it a public utility?
| autoexec wrote:
| So that search engines work.
|
| Google search has been crippled by ads. Sometimes people
| just want nice stuff and a search engine that wasn't
| designed to mislead
| (https://www.theverge.com/2015/11/20/9768350/google-ads-
| searc...) and where the amount of money paid doesn't
| dictate what is easy to find would be a great asset to
| everybody. No company has risen to give us a powerful
| search engine that isn't also a cesspool of marketing
| bullshit so it would be reasonable for people to seek an
| option that serves the interests of the public.
| kevinventullo wrote:
| I suppose if the government felt that ads-supported search
| engines had such misaligned incentives that it would be net
| beneficial for society to create one without such
| incentives, then that might serve as a justification. I
| don't actually think this is plausible, just making an
| analogy with say private fire departments.
| yonaguska wrote:
| Yeah, I just don't trust the govt to not politicize search,
| or at the very least, to not use search results to
| manufacture consent or other nefarious intentions.
|
| NPR comes to mind.
|
| With private companies, at least there's some visage of a
| separation from state influence although we are seeing the
| lash back now with Twitter.
| [deleted]
| puchatek wrote:
| I would pay Google 30 just for search+maps of it came without
| tracking and ads
| INeedMoreRam wrote:
| My solution is using uBlock Origin without signing in to
| Google and a VPN.
|
| I'm not concerned about ads because I literally never see
| them.
|
| And uBlock blocks the tracking.
|
| Do you not use uBlock Origin?
| https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/ublock-
| origin/cjpa...
| the_third_wave wrote:
| They'd happily take your money and track and ad-bomb you
| anyway, the ads will be ingeniously disguised as "valuable
| information" but they'd be there.
| thewebcount wrote:
| It's a slippery slope though. We saw this with Google, so it's
| not like it's a straw man. First it's small, discrete ads to
| the side. Then it's the first few entries are ads, but are
| marked as such. Then it's the first page of entries. Then the
| marking disappears. (Yeah, they put it back eventually after a
| backlash. I wouldn't expect a company like Brave to do the
| same, though.)
|
| I just go with a search engine I pay for that doesn't offer any
| ad-supported stuff (kagi.com). That way, I'm directly
| supporting the service, and they have zero incentive to start
| showing me stuff that other people are paying for me to see and
| which I definitely don't want to see.
| mgreg wrote:
| It's a very good point that companies will (eventually) look
| to maximize revenue and thus even companies that start out
| with grand ideas of being "different" succumb to that
| pressure.
|
| A strong countervailing force (in some markets) is
| competition. If Google had more competition (both in terms of
| a independent search service and access to be the default
| search option in browsers) they might have to start caring
| more about the search experience and privacy.
| Pilottwave wrote:
| lots of criticism for brave in this thread. they are the best
| privacy browser at the moment based on leakage tests for default
| settings. they got a working add-blocker by default. they have
| privacy preserving ads because of local in browser matching, your
| data never leaves the browser for the ads, the ads come to you!
| they even pay you for watching the ads, and enable you to support
| creators.
|
| I feel we finally have a privacy respecting browser normal people
| and tech enthousiast can use, and it puzzles me how it's painted
| here. let's stay objective
|
| if you don't like the web3 stuff or the blockchain based rewards
| don't use it. But the web3 space is booming and brave has been
| nice way to interact with it.
| SV_BubbleTime wrote:
| >But the web3 space is booming
|
| Is it?
| Pilottwave wrote:
| lots of projects, and interest has boomed last year because
| there has been lots of money sloshing around. but it's very
| much the wild west. just look for cool tech and not for get
| rich quick schemes and your bound to find something to your
| liking!
| rabuse wrote:
| Everything free, becomes ad-infested. Nothing is free, and it's
| really annoying seeing company after company make empty promises
| about privacy and "being different", then switching up when their
| investors start breathing down their necks. Just be honest from
| the start.
| p0pcult wrote:
| At this point, it's not just free things that are becoming
| infested.
| princevegeta89 wrote:
| Agreed. Outside software, there's a growing plague as well.
|
| - Buying an $1200+ iPhone that doesn't come with an adapter.
|
| - BMW charging you $10+ bucks per month to turn on seat
| heaters that came with your already expensive car
|
| - Mercedes 0-60mph acceleration booster "unlock fee" for
| $1200/year
|
| - Tesla woes with frequent "upgrades" locked behind paywalls.
|
| - The ironic micro-transactions in Mobile games. When summed
| up, they are only "macro" with millions of bucks coming in
| every day. This has infested gaming outside Mobile as well.
| I'm not ever gonna touch console gaming again.
| sph wrote:
| Yeah, they're so ubiquitous people have gotten used to them.
| Companies have learned that if you put ads in paid products,
| people grumble and moan but still keep paying for your
| product.
|
| The future is ads everywhere, paid or free, doesn't matter.
| More revenue out of every user with little effort,
| shareholders love this stuff.
| vorticalbox wrote:
| I recently installed windows 10 on my Linux box and the
| amount of ads in the start menu was shocking.
|
| Though I guess it's no different than dvds having ads after
| you paid for them.
| shishy wrote:
| I dunno if it's fair to say "just be honest from the start" --
| they might have genuinely believed it but had to face the
| reality because they set themselves up poorly with how they
| raised / their finances / etc.
| siverson914 wrote:
| Craigslist has done a pretty good job resisting this.
| 0xRepublic wrote:
| The lack of bs website overhead on craigslist is honestly
| impressive. RAW HTML BABY!
| btbuildem wrote:
| Craigslist isn't free -- there are certain categories (like
| job postings in some areas) that are paid. This subsidizes
| the entire service.
|
| Craigslist has indeed done very, very well. They've
| maintained a useful service, ad-free, for decades. Made a ton
| of money doing it, too.
| titzer wrote:
| Their secret is they did not try to grow at an insane rate.
| They have 50 employees and over $650 million in revenue.
| The revenue per employee is over $13 million.
|
| The reason the giants are giant is because they are driven
| to become giant by people and investors who want to become
| billionaires.
| cpeterso wrote:
| Could Craigslist have been as successful if it launched
| today, instead of 1996?
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2022-12-01 23:01 UTC)