>that doesn’t mean it should be free for any reason other than I don’t want to pay for it Not the thesis of the article, this is taking down a straw man. The a

>that doesn’t mean it should be free for any reason other than I don’t want to pay for it Not the thesis of the article, this is taking down a straw man. The actual article says this: >If companies claim to “take your security seriously”, then SSO should be available as a feature that is either: >1. part of the core product, or >2. an optional paid extra for a reasonable delta, or >3. attached to a price tier, but with a reasonably small gap between the non-SSO tier and SSO tiers. >Many vendors charge 2x, 3x, or 4x the base product pricing for access to SSO, which disincentivizes its use and encourages poor security practices.