4 ms·

Am I the only one who considers this a good thing? I recently started using 1Password, and I love it. I finally jumped in because a colleague gave it glowing p

Am I the only one who considers this a good thing? I recently started using 1Password, and I love it. I finally jumped in because a colleague gave it glowing praise and my company gave us corporate accounts. After using it for a week through my company account, I created a separate personal account for myself. I happily pay a monthly subscription because it is a service I benefit from daily. It also lets me neatly manage personal and company accounts easily, from the same interface, while still keeping the vaults separate. I see this as a good thing because someone will become the password manager for large companies, and that someone will likely become the password manager. I'm glad to see it's likely to become a service that I think is a good one. I understand people are worried that the personal use will suffer, but I don't see how. (I understand why people say that - less emphasis on a smaller market - but I don't see how since the corporate offering is basically the same thing as the personal one, to an individual user.)

gtf21 7y ago
> I see this as a good thing because someone will become the password manager for large companies, and that someone will likely become the password manager A) 1Password was already well on its way to doing this (a lot of large companies seem to be using it); B) I'm not sure that it follows necessarily that the largest corporate option will become the largest consumer option.
swozey 7y ago
> Am I the only one who considers this a good thing? This company over the years has, multiple times, basically ripped the rug out from under its users (moving to online vaults, hiding native app, switching from a single fee to monthly charge) so I really don't see it as a positive. From comments in here it seems like they'll be focusing on Enterprise. That just leads me to assume they'll listen to consumer feedback even less.
- novok 7y ago
  What do you mean native app? I use the native apps all the time and it’s a pretty prominent thing that you get redirect to when you press get started on their front page
  - Dirlewanger 7y ago
    They make it incredibly difficult to still pay the one-time fee for the software vs. doing the monthly charge. Like, hiding it. They have threads on their support forum of users complaining how deceptive it is. It's clear they want your vault on their servers and you paying the monthly fee instead of using Dropbox and paying a one-time fee.
    - skinnymuch 7y ago
      Right. So that was one time they did a shift. And they slowly phased out the one time product which was a strategy they were employing from day one. They didn’t pull rug out from under customers more than once then.
      - deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
    - ThePowerOfFuet 7y ago
      They don't give a shit about your vault. They want your money every year instead of once-off.
    - novok 7y ago
      That isn't what the definition of a native app is. They still have native apps, they have effectively deprecated the dropbox sync / local vault features of the app. And single pay licences are going to go away soon.
- skinnymuch 7y ago
  Aren’t all your examples things that happened at the same time or basically because of one shift? The switch to being a SaaS? So that’s just one time really. The events may be spread out a bit, but it’s really just one event to me.
  - streblo 7y ago
    You're correct that these changes all happened contiguously. The "multiple times" argument isn't very accurate.
TheTaytay 7y ago
You are not the only one who considers it a good thing. I love 1Password and the team behind it. They already have a solid team-base offering, and giving them more resources to help improve their enterprise offering makes a lot of sense to me. I can _imagine_ the personal use suffering if they determine that's too small of a slice of pie, but I'll reserve judgement rather than assume that will happen and get preemptively disappointed.
jodrellblank 7y ago
Am I the only one who considers this a good thing? Why do you see this as a good thing - what good will come of it for you? You’re describing a tool which already does what you want; With this investment, 1Password need to squeeze half a billion extra dollars out of you just to give to investors. What is it that their tool doesn’t do for you, which needs that kind of trade for them to be able to build it?
- ummonk 7y ago
  They need to squeeze half a billion extra dollars from businesses. The growth potential will be on expanding the B2B revenues.
- scott_s 7y ago
  Because I want them to continue to exist. They provide a service, not just a software product. This makes me even more confident they will be able to continue providing that service for many years.
  - jodrellblank 7y ago
    I haven't tried to find out from their finances, but this move would worry me; I'd assume that previously they were independent and profitable, and that now they're on a deadline to generate a lot of return on investment and most likely future is to be acquired in a single digit number of years and then absolutely ruined by the acquiring company (because that seems to be what acquiring companies do - buy things and wreck them).
    - scott_s 7y ago
      On the contrary, I think they will be less likely to be displaced by someone else who targets the corporate market.
AdmiralAsshat 7y ago
Well, as anecdotal data, LastPass got acquired by LogMeIn a few years ago, and since that time, it has introduced practically no new features, yet the yearly membership price has risen from $12/yr to $36/yr. That's what happens when the scrappy young company with a valuable product gets acquired. Research and Development stops, Rent-Seeking skyrockets. Every time.
- jsutton 7y ago
  That's not actually what happened here, not to say rent-seeking won't happen in the future. R&D stopped well before acquisition, and since acquisition the main focus has been making the product scalable, reliable, and expanding to business users.
  - AdmiralAsshat 7y ago
    I can only assume based on your comments here and on other threads that you work/ed for LastPass, so I appreciate any insight you might lend. I am still struggling with the idea that a company that was profitable selling licenses for $12/yr needed to then rise to $24/yr and again to $36/yr within the span of two years and somehow not be considered rent-seeking. You said this is to cater to enterprise users, and yet it's not the enterprise users that are bearing the brunt of the price increase. Absent any visibility into company workings, this feels like corporate overlords acquiring a product and declaring, "You are profitable, but our shareholders demand at least XX% profitability, so you need to make more profit, effective immediately." Please shed whatever light you can on this.

gtf21 7y ago

> I see this as a good thing because someone will become the password manager for large companies, and that someone will likely become the password manager A) 1Password was already well on its way to doing this (a lot of large companies seem to be using it); B) I'm not sure that it follows necessarily that the largest corporate option will become the largest consumer option.

swozey 7y ago

> Am I the only one who considers this a good thing? This company over the years has, multiple times, basically ripped the rug out from under its users (moving to online vaults, hiding native app, switching from a single fee to monthly charge) so I really don't see it as a positive. From comments in here it seems like they'll be focusing on Enterprise. That just leads me to assume they'll listen to consumer feedback even less.

novok 7y ago
What do you mean native app? I use the native apps all the time and it’s a pretty prominent thing that you get redirect to when you press get started on their front page
- Dirlewanger 7y ago
  They make it incredibly difficult to still pay the one-time fee for the software vs. doing the monthly charge. Like, hiding it. They have threads on their support forum of users complaining how deceptive it is. It's clear they want your vault on their servers and you paying the monthly fee instead of using Dropbox and paying a one-time fee.
  - skinnymuch 7y ago
    Right. So that was one time they did a shift. And they slowly phased out the one time product which was a strategy they were employing from day one. They didn’t pull rug out from under customers more than once then.
    - deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
  - ThePowerOfFuet 7y ago
    They don't give a shit about your vault. They want your money every year instead of once-off.
  - novok 7y ago
    That isn't what the definition of a native app is. They still have native apps, they have effectively deprecated the dropbox sync / local vault features of the app. And single pay licences are going to go away soon.
skinnymuch 7y ago
Aren’t all your examples things that happened at the same time or basically because of one shift? The switch to being a SaaS? So that’s just one time really. The events may be spread out a bit, but it’s really just one event to me.
- streblo 7y ago
  You're correct that these changes all happened contiguously. The "multiple times" argument isn't very accurate.

TheTaytay 7y ago

You are not the only one who considers it a good thing. I love 1Password and the team behind it. They already have a solid team-base offering, and giving them more resources to help improve their enterprise offering makes a lot of sense to me. I can _imagine_ the personal use suffering if they determine that's too small of a slice of pie, but I'll reserve judgement rather than assume that will happen and get preemptively disappointed.

jodrellblank 7y ago

Am I the only one who considers this a good thing? Why do you see this as a good thing - what good will come of it for you? You’re describing a tool which already does what you want; With this investment, 1Password need to squeeze half a billion extra dollars out of you just to give to investors. What is it that their tool doesn’t do for you, which needs that kind of trade for them to be able to build it?

ummonk 7y ago
They need to squeeze half a billion extra dollars from businesses. The growth potential will be on expanding the B2B revenues.
scott_s 7y ago
Because I want them to continue to exist. They provide a service, not just a software product. This makes me even more confident they will be able to continue providing that service for many years.
- jodrellblank 7y ago
  I haven't tried to find out from their finances, but this move would worry me; I'd assume that previously they were independent and profitable, and that now they're on a deadline to generate a lot of return on investment and most likely future is to be acquired in a single digit number of years and then absolutely ruined by the acquiring company (because that seems to be what acquiring companies do - buy things and wreck them).
  - scott_s 7y ago
    On the contrary, I think they will be less likely to be displaced by someone else who targets the corporate market.

AdmiralAsshat 7y ago

Well, as anecdotal data, LastPass got acquired by LogMeIn a few years ago, and since that time, it has introduced practically no new features, yet the yearly membership price has risen from $12/yr to $36/yr. That's what happens when the scrappy young company with a valuable product gets acquired. Research and Development stops, Rent-Seeking skyrockets. Every time.

jsutton 7y ago
That's not actually what happened here, not to say rent-seeking won't happen in the future. R&D stopped well before acquisition, and since acquisition the main focus has been making the product scalable, reliable, and expanding to business users.
- AdmiralAsshat 7y ago
  I can only assume based on your comments here and on other threads that you work/ed for LastPass, so I appreciate any insight you might lend. I am still struggling with the idea that a company that was profitable selling licenses for $12/yr needed to then rise to $24/yr and again to $36/yr within the span of two years and somehow not be considered rent-seeking. You said this is to cater to enterprise users, and yet it's not the enterprise users that are bearing the brunt of the price increase. Absent any visibility into company workings, this feels like corporate overlords acquiring a product and declaring, "You are profitable, but our shareholders demand at least XX% profitability, so you need to make more profit, effective immediately." Please shed whatever light you can on this.