It does. But if we're talking about just the software, I don't think updates to an already-finished password manager are worth nearly that much.
Microsoft used to sell upgrades for their entire OS for $3 a month, released once every 3 years.
No such thing.
If it was finished they'd close their doors and find a new way to make a living.
> Microsoft used to sell upgrades for their entire OS for $3 a month, released once every 3 years.
Great way to make my point. MS tried taking just 3 dollars a month for an entire OS, but because they were asking for money upfront they had to turn to a mixture advertising Candy Crush in the start menu and privacy abuse.
Well that's the big question with these services isn't it? Are they keeping their doors open because they have more value to provide? Or is this just a ruse to keep their doors open without any further value to provide?
https://app-updates.agilebits.com/product_history/OPM7
They provide a reliable service that's never let me down when I needed it, have security updates and bug fixes, provide great support, track OS and hardware updates... not much more they need to do to justify existing.
Feature-complete, then. It needs updates but it doesn't need significant development work.
> Great way to make my point. MS tried taking just 3 dollars a month for an entire OS, but because they were asking for money upfront they had to turn to a mixture advertising Candy Crush in the start menu and privacy abuse.
They make most of their money off new computers at an even lower price. Adding candy crush and more tracking came after they switched to making upgrades free, and I really doubt it's worth $100 a seat.
They made home windows into a loss-leader. If there was a choice to pay to remove those things I bet they'd make somewhat more money. But it's not where their big revenue streams are so they don't care.
Once you get there it doesn't matter if your goal was features or updates, you're talking about closing doors and laying people off.
So I'd much rather 1password do exactly what they did and pivot off a failing model.
> They made home windows into a loss-leader.
That's great, and I'm sure when 1Password has a 100B war chest to sit on they'll think about doing the same.
Most people would consider turning your flagship into a loss-leader for other parts of the company not exactly the goal of the average software shop.
Windows is not a loss-leader. It makes them lots of money. They just threw away a single sales channel.
> pivot off a failing model
Microsoft hasn't pivoted off upfront sales for Windows.
I just now realized you're the same person from the other thread and it all makes sense now, this was never about 1Password for you. My mistake taking the bait.
And of course, I vehemently agree with anything you say about 1Password, or Windows.
And if you don't like corrections then don't nitpick so much.
What? People in general are clamoring and highly prefer one-time payment. Approximately nobody wants a recurring charge every month.
Companies are pushing and forcing subscriptions only because the recurring revenue stream is what investors want to see. People don't want it.
IME most people don’t want to pay for anything at all. Which is partly why the subscription model works — try it for free for a month so you can understand the value proposition. Afterward, you’re more willing to pay for it.
By your logic there’s nothing wrong with any other app asking for their own monthly toll when you feel that 1Password is justified in doing so.
> Like if every paid subscription you had was 3 dollars how would your bills look?
But 1Password never needed to be a subscription in the first place. I am still able to use 1Password6 to this day without any updates for the past 3 years. That’s $108 for software that I paid $30 originally.
> People are allergic to upfront payment. People just might not have the funds to pay a fair price all at once.
If they were truly worried about losing customers unwilling to pay upfront they’d offer both options. By forcing everyone to go subscription they see that they could have milked me for an additional $78+ without doing any work at all.
> I bet you one-time payment users ended up being some of their most expensive users since they had to manage disparate sync schemes. Now at least subscription users can subsides that cost a bit…
I don’t see why I should feel inclined to pay more to support some edge case users. I didn’t bemoan 1Password when they didn’t provide an update after Safari changed their API. I continued using the software in Firefox and Chrome.
Am I considered an “expensive user” simply because I’m unwilling to pay their toll? I haven’t gotten any support from them for the past 3 years.
We live in a capitalistic world and 1Password is free to go with whatever pricing model works for them to maximize their revenues. Likewise, I am free to warn people the poor value that they’re receiving with the current subscription model. I don’t have to aspire to be a reoccurring revenue stream to boost their $6.8B valuation…
This sounds so much pithier than it actually is, but of course every reply will say it.
Does 1Password asking for 3 dollars make every other app on your computer suddenly need 3 dollars a month?
Every piece of software needs its own plan for continued development.
Some software you use exists because people work on it for free, some exists because massive ad-tech companies defiling the globe's privacy fund it, etc.
-
Paid subscriptions is one of those types, and as far as paid subscriptions go 3 dollars a month is bottom of the barrel.
Like if every paid subscription you had was 3 dollars how would your bills look?
Many MANY companies have tried one time payments and died over it. People are allergic to upfront payment. People just might not have the funds to pay a fair price all at once. A tech forum isn't exactly where to get perspective on that for example...
1Password clearly tried the one time payment model, and if I had to imagine for a second, I bet you one-time payment users ended up being some of their most expensive users since they had to manage disparate sync schemes.
Now at least subscription users can subsides that cost a bit...