It's cross-platform and integrates with browsers so it makes sense they would want to use a cross-platform JavaScript solution as much as possible. Not just to make their developers more efficient, but to reduce the surface area for bugs and vulnerabilities.
99.9% of my usage is within the browser plugin anyways. And whenever I have to edit an entry, it works fine.
If you don't (or barely) use the app, the app is not an issue to you; that seems pretty self-evident.
The experience for regular users may differ.
I don't use a plugin. Never tried it, simply never mattered enough (and I generally store frequently-used browser passwords in the browser's keychain as well).
If this had been your business, what would you have done? I would have done exactly what they did.
That doesn't change the consumer perspective: I'm paying more for a worse product.
If electron was actually always bad, you wouldn't need a script to scan your machine and tell you which apps to hate, you'd just know "yep that's slop" upon first opening the app. Yet that is not the case. Because electron is a tool, and it's sometimes used so well that you don't even notice it until you run a script.
> 1Password.app: Electron 37.3.1 (Contents/Frameworks/Electron Framework.framework/Versions/A/Electron Framework)
[1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45437112
Edit: Judging by the downvotes, it looks like there are a lot of electron lovers here. Why the hate for more efficient native apps? Are bloated binaries, janky UI and lower battery life, features? :)