I don't quite see why free bug fixes/minor features + paid major upgrades model should be any different from subscription model for developers, except giving the users control over when to upgrade. Control that is essential for apps that contain critical data.
BTW, I think they do have an option that you pay for 3 years upfront. At least, that was one of the options they mentioned when I complained about the lack of the option to buy a license. To me that did not seem an acceptable solution because you pay upfront and still have all the drawbacks of the subscription model such as being dependent on the trustworthiness of a quite obviously untrustworthy company. Add to that the removal of local vault option, and it becomes even less acceptable.
Another problem with emojis is that it is not clear what it means to different people. Recently read in the WSJ that young people find smiley faces passive-aggressive or patronizing, not friendly or positive.
Admittedly, there is a similar problem with words, but there are at least dictionaries for them. :>
> They said that 97% of their users are already on subscriptions.
It is quite obvious from the response here that 97% of their users who are actually paying attention to these issues are not on the bandwagon. They should rephrase it as "we could fool 97% of our customers into switching after years of misdirection and misinformation".
> I'm also not worried about the Mac app moving to electron - I interact with 1password via my mobile or browser plugin 99% of the time anyway, so I just don't really care.
The main 'customer benefit` claim for the electron switch (as opposed to the 'developer benefit') they are pushing is 'consistent UI across platforms` so your view exemplifies that, at best, there is really no customer benefit to the switch.
> I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that.
Let's be clear about this: you are the seller, we are the customer. You can't `agree to disagree` with your customers.
If you don't agree to what some your customers are telling you, then they won't be your customers, and you won't lose just these customers but also all the others who observe your behavior. It is a modified case of repeated prisoner's dilemma. If I observe that you tend to defect on other instances, I will less inclination to cooperate. In other words, your reputation will suffer.
On the consistent user interfaces, the consistency of an app with other apps on the same platform is much more important than the consistency of that app across platforms. Even if you use multiple platforms, you switch much more frequently between apps on the same platform than between different instances of one app across platforms.
As far as I am concerned, this is a `bait and switch` tactic. It is unethical. And it is a surefire way to shoot oneself in the corporate foot and destroy customer trust.
Nobody who values security enough to use a password manager would leave their passwords at the mercy of the next corporate turnabout, when said corporation is evidently untrustworthy.
This is the same lizard-brain self-interest unleavened by any shred of higher brain functions that people like Shkreli exhibit: `the suckers have switching costs so let's jack up the price obscenely while reducing the actual customer benefits.` Some people should be kept away from MBA programs.
BTW, I think they do have an option that you pay for 3 years upfront. At least, that was one of the options they mentioned when I complained about the lack of the option to buy a license. To me that did not seem an acceptable solution because you pay upfront and still have all the drawbacks of the subscription model such as being dependent on the trustworthiness of a quite obviously untrustworthy company. Add to that the removal of local vault option, and it becomes even less acceptable.