These people either don't understand what living in a "world" means or are just too stuck into "but rest of you don't pay" that it will be hard for them grasp anything beyond what's written in stone on those grey surfaces for them. What they also don't understand that a small fraction of paying customers in some of such countries might or will outspend entire country's regular spending in the "paying world". They also don't understand that to achieve that unlike physical goods these companies don't have to open agencies, distributors, warehouses, retail chains etc to "sell".
PS. Some of these fine people are still living in 1940s and 50s and maybe even the 70s (read Davos etc), or have lenses from that time that they are fitting in their worldview glasses.
Also, people in North America who don’t have tech jobs exist. I make pretty good money as a teacher, and it’s still significantly less than many of the parent posters salaries.
We’re talking median annual income of $10,000. I could forgive someone getting paid that not wanting to spend that $10 on an internet search engine instead of food.
Okay, but why single out Kagi? Everything is too expensive if you don't have money. Should all companies in the world stop making their products, except energy, food, and shelter?
And $10 is about 1% of your monthly income in your example numbers, meaning it's perfectly fine also for somebody making $10 000 per year.
> And $10 is about 1% of your monthly income in your example numbers, meaning it's perfectly fine also for somebody making $10 000 per year.
What on Earth? Ok I'll bite. $70 is about 1% of median monthly income for someone making $80K/yr, meaning it's perfectly fine for somebody with the median US income, by your own logic. Would you pay $70/mo for a search engine?
And no, no one should stop making their products. No idea how you'd come to that conclusion after reading my comment (that said, companies could definitely stand to introduce regional pricing).
If the search engine offered $70 of value or more, I'd pay that, why not? Provided I had that money to spare. A bicycle is more expensive than that, but I don't blame bicycle makers if I can't afford a bike, especially if I don't want a bike.
PS. Some of these fine people are still living in 1940s and 50s and maybe even the 70s (read Davos etc), or have lenses from that time that they are fitting in their worldview glasses.