I agree that everyone should use a password manager. But that doesn't mean you need to subscribe to one, rather than buy one outright or use the (rather capable ones) that platforms already ship with. 1Password could have run a good stable company. Instead they took $1B in venture capital, and now need to desperately grow an monetize their user base to justify their $7B valuation.
It's easy to see why some things need to be subscription-based; e.g. the value is actually in some kind of constantly updated content; or providing ongoing service actually has a significant cost to the supplier, e.g. in bandwidth, compute resources, operations. Neither of those is the case for password managers. (Or at least, should not be the case.)
> 1Password could have run a good stable company. Instead they took $1B in venture capital, and now need to desperately grow an monetize their user base to justify their $7B valuation.
That is their greedy business decision, and it should not reflect to every one of the password managers. If it costs too much, change service.
However, there is a reason why you would pay for the password manager. They have the highest security requirement from the every app.
Their auto-fill properties should not fill to scam websites.
They should support every possible machine, like BitWarden for example does, even CLI is there.
They should be accessible at any time.
Their data can’t be leaked with bad memory managment.
Their UX should be designed in a way that everyone graps the idea of good password, and can keep using them.
Too often people stop using them, because they are too difficult or clumsy to use.
It's easy to see why some things need to be subscription-based; e.g. the value is actually in some kind of constantly updated content; or providing ongoing service actually has a significant cost to the supplier, e.g. in bandwidth, compute resources, operations. Neither of those is the case for password managers. (Or at least, should not be the case.)