> My mistake for assuming you were talking about the thing being talked about
I said buying it is "fine". Even if that was directed specifically to this service, that doesn't mean I want it.
> there's also no one person who knows a definitive answer
Then don't be so insistent that the price is good.
> Like, software companies have gone with your reality, and before 10 years passes up and you feel like it's time to upgrade... they're gone!
I'm not saying they have to do it that way, I just think it's a reasonable way to calculate the price of the functionality.
If they want a steadier income that's fine, but wanting a full retail paycheck every single year is going too far.
> It's not just $3 for passwords, it's $3 so I have confidence I'm not relying on 1password having indefinite growth to have people work there.
On the other hand, worrying about whether companies will be around for the long term is a big reason I dislike subscriptions.
That $3 doesn't guarantee they'll still be around. And for a simple product like this, the more ambitious they get the more worried I get.
Also this company is an order of magnitude or two bigger than "sustainable". The only way they would stop selling a password manager is because of bad management or because they choose to pivot into a different market. They're not going to have insufficient money to pay the staff of their core product.
You've thrown any sort of internal consistency so far out the window at this point, I don't think you even know what you're saying anymore.
You start by implying there's something wrong with insisting on the quality of a price then...
> If they want a steadier income that's fine, but wanting a full retail paycheck every single year is going too far.
Right. So you're now you're not just saying that the subscription model is bad, you're saying that you've decided what a full retail paycheck for their software is.
-
You say:
> That $3 doesn't guarantee they'll still be around
> for a simple product like this, the more ambitious they get the more worried I get.
> Also this company is an order of magnitude or two bigger than "sustainable"
Yet it's all exactly the reason why this is true:
> They're not going to have insufficient money to pay the staff of their core product.
I mean how do you think 1Password reached the size where you're essentially calling them "too big to fail"?
They did the ramen noodle "sustainable" thing, and they'd be a footnote if they had stayed there. Instead they were ambitious, they scaled, they took people's money in a way that works for them, and now some internet person is simultaneously saying "They're so successful they'll never fail if they don't want to" and "Why are they doing what they did to reach that point???"
> Right. So you're now you're not just saying that the subscription model is bad, you're saying that you've decided what a full retail paycheck for their software is.
Did you forget that they used to sell it that way? And there are competitors with similar prices. We know what retail price is.
> "Why are they doing what they did to reach that point???"
I never asked that.
They raised their prices so they'd make more money, obviously.
When I say it's too expensive for me, that's not me being confused about why they charge that much.
I'd rather pay for a product plus some profits plus some scaling, and not pay for a product plus some profits plus extremely aggressive scaling.
They can both keep a company around for a long time, and the former might even be better for that.
Like you said a couple comments up, I want "confidence I'm not relying on 1password having indefinite growth to have people work there". The more they focus on very fast growth, the less I have of that confidence.
> I mean how do you think 1Password reached the size where you're essentially calling them "too big to fail"?
They reached a safe size before they switched to forcing subscriptions.
I said buying it is "fine". Even if that was directed specifically to this service, that doesn't mean I want it.
> there's also no one person who knows a definitive answer
Then don't be so insistent that the price is good.
> Like, software companies have gone with your reality, and before 10 years passes up and you feel like it's time to upgrade... they're gone!
I'm not saying they have to do it that way, I just think it's a reasonable way to calculate the price of the functionality.
If they want a steadier income that's fine, but wanting a full retail paycheck every single year is going too far.
> It's not just $3 for passwords, it's $3 so I have confidence I'm not relying on 1password having indefinite growth to have people work there.
On the other hand, worrying about whether companies will be around for the long term is a big reason I dislike subscriptions.
That $3 doesn't guarantee they'll still be around. And for a simple product like this, the more ambitious they get the more worried I get.
Also this company is an order of magnitude or two bigger than "sustainable". The only way they would stop selling a password manager is because of bad management or because they choose to pivot into a different market. They're not going to have insufficient money to pay the staff of their core product.