From the article:

It should be noted that this subscriptions-for-features model applies to the European-spec A3. An Audi spokesperson declined to comment on whether these in-car subscriptions will also make it to the US when the car goes on sale for 2025.

Off-topic, but what even is this site?

By using this instance you agree to be crime and do gay.

I mean, you’re focused on minimizing a concluding thought around an informative dialogue originated by me asking about the perspectives of those feeling impacted by this (of which I’m not). I didn’t find the responses to be a waste of time to read so not sure why you felt that detracting from the discourse was to be your contribution rather than sharing your own perspective to further the group’s discussion.

Care to expand? Not sure how anything I’ve said is hand wringing nor what you’re implying I should be doing.

You can count me as one of those people so don’t get me wrong; I’m all for not supporting Brave or Eich. I was just curious why this instance where Kagi is paying to use Brave’s search API (which, IMO, doesn’t carry the weight of being labeled a partnership any more than me being a partner with Sony because I pay for PS+) among many other companies/products is the dealbreaker for those that use Kagi. And there may be more to the story (or maybe there is an actual partnership I’ve missed) so I’m open to being more informed.

But if thats the root of the controversy, I can respect that even if I don’t necessarily align with the level of outcry here.

Fair enough. IMO, Brave isn’t a big enough player compared to many other companies in the enterprise space used by Kagi (both that we know of as consumers and wouldn’t know of without being an employee with knowledge of their internal SaaS agreements) that Kagi’s specific use case of Brave singularly would have been the deal breaker (for me).

Personally, getting that granular with money flow quickly becomes untenable as a consumer as every business will, to some degree, end up paying for some level of service from the companies we hope to lessen the power of. As a consumer example, I may really dislike how Google is influencing the standards of consumer data privacy in the world and choose not to pay for or use Google products/services directly, but I couldn’t imagine boycotting all companies that use Google Workspace internally for email, docs, sheets, etc.

Kagi seems to be a main player that’s opening the conversation of paying for internet search when the world is used to a standard of “free” search, so saying they can’t utilize the existing search data sources is going to make that experience dead in the water. We need ripples if we hope for change.

Edit: sudneo‘s comment actually summed up my thoughts pretty well.

In my personal opinion, such unrealistic ethical requirements end up being a reactionary choice as they will ultimately impede new - better - players to emerge and will leave the existing - worse - dominating.

To better understand (and definitely not dismissing your opinion), was Brave where you drew the line as a customer or was Google, Amazon, etc also of concern where Kagi pays for services?

I’ve no stake in either Kagi or Brave (and have my own issues with Brave and their CEO), but “partnership” seems like a stretch of definition here assuming this is in reference to the Brave Search API being added as another source for search results. Am I missing something here?

Kagi December 28, 2023 Release Notes

We have added Brave Search API as an additional source of results. With this, Brave API joins the growing list of Kagi’s search sources, ensuring that if you can not find something on Kagi, it does not exist on the web. This will come at no additional cost to you.