Google makes about $3 per user per month in ad revenue[0]. With VAT and transfer costs that makes a equivalent subscription maybe $5 per month?

(Too much for my taste.)

Then you have to factor in that (far) fewer users are going to use/pay for their products if it's a subscription.

It's a though calculation for sure.

[0] https://thenextweb.com/news/heres-how-much-money-you-made-go...

That’s what Kagi charges:

https://kagi.com/pricing?plan=individual

For 300 searches a month.

Google is making it based on theoretically unlimited searches for everyone. No caps in the number of searches.

You have to to the $10 USD a month tier with Kagi to have the same expectation met, which is unlimited searches

This assumes that privacy-preserving advertising would make Google $0. I doubt this is the case, especially if every other company is also using a similar business model. For purely placement advertising, Google still has more reach than any newspaper or magazine ever produced in the pre-internet era.

Which Google product out of the many[0] do you know that doesn't scrape data?

I think Google profits massively off of the ignorance of its users and is reliant on their unawareness that they're producers of actual relevant data.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Google_products

Google the search engine could exist without being a privacy pest. But once Google bought DoubleClick in 2002 and made their ad delivery platform their own, going down the panopticon path became inevitable.

I agree generally, but I was under the impression they had explicitly committed to ads over other revenue forms much earlier. Importantly, there was a point in Google's history where they weren't committed to this, and the internet would look a lot different had they not just assumed ads would be sufficient from the start.

Curiously, they had a solution of sorts in a program where you could basically bid for your own ad buys to remove ads from pages. For some reason they shuttered this program down. I didn't even know it existed until after it was gone, frustratingly. I thought it was a neat way to allow the industry bridge to other funding models.

(Or perhaps such a business model relies on tracking that's been deemed invasive. Who knows.)

> Curiously, they had a solution of sorts in a program where you could basically bid for your own ad buys to remove ads from pages. For some reason they shuttered this program down.

Because in reality this is just an opt in donation to Google. It's always cheaper to just block ads entirely.

Agreed.