If someone pays $40 for, say, 1Password 5, they have no incentive to upgrade. It works well enough, and there's no reason to pay again. So, 1Password is stuck supporting a legacy product (and servers / APIs for it), the user is frustrated by an old version of the software, and the company gets no money so they're at risk of folding (which would hurt both the customer and 1Password).
I agree that subscriptions can get annoying. However, if it ultimately is about the same price, it ends up working out much better for both sides. And hey, they can always stop their subscription and go somewhere else if things get bad. They don't lose their buying power completely.
That is to say that I personally (and again, this is just my opinion) don't care about any new features and would be unlikely to upgrade from version 6 on that basis. I may upgrade to ensure I will continue receiving security updates and OS and browser extension compatibility updates, but it would be nice to know how long such updates to version 7 are guaranteed for (presumably they will eventually release version 8 for a new fee and discontinue such updates to version 7).
> (and servers / APIs for it)
The users (like me) who are against subscriptions are only using local vaults (managing the storage sync ourselves) and do not care for or want the web/sync services.
I disagree. Security software (as opposed to boxed titles prior to the Internet era), subject to frequent review and that is updated regularly does offer continuing value in a steady stream of updates.
As another commenter said, the price of security is eternal vigilance.
They should be supporting security updates and this should be built into their costs. Security updates represent flaws in their product.
If the user is frustrated by an old oversion and looks to upgrade (whether to a competitor or a new version), then that makes upgrading justified, transparent, and intentional.
Their subscription model just serves to make upgrading less intentional, less transparent, and takes away power from the consumer. Also at their current pricing it’s a massive increase in cost without really deliverying much more value. You’re paying more than what it normally costs in a year, to only be able to use it for a year. It’s like forcing me to pay for their product on an installment plan, but I don’t rven get to keep using it in the end.
Whatever benefits they claim a subscription provides can also be achieved by having more frequent, smaller, incremental updates for features you can pay for.
But don't forget compatibility updates. Underlying platforms change all the time, it makes sense for users to have to pay for these updates outside a certain time period.
This is how software worked for multiple decades before subscriptions came about.
The customer could pay $5 and then cancel the subscription if they do not like the service.
With the license purchase they have to make a large commitment upfront.
The only thing a subscription model is good for is it wrestes power from the consumer.
With the traditional model if they decide to stop updating the app, you wouldn’t buy the next version, and that would be your leverage. With a subscription model, they can decide to stop deivering updates, or deliver lower quality updates, and you’d be forced to pay perpetually just to keep the existing software operational.