Can I still buy standalone license for the 1password? [no longer being marketed]

1457910

Comments

  • brentybrenty

    AgileBits Team Member

    @didenko: Thanks for taking the time to share your thoughts on this. We're committed to improving 1Password; and right now, since we already 1Password apps for each platform that fully support local vaults and licenses for those that depend on them, we're focused on 1Password.com because there's frankly still lot we can do to improve things for users there. And whether you're storing your encrypted data locally or we're hosting it for you, you can always export it, so you're never locked in.

  • brentybrenty

    AgileBits Team Member

    @jpons: Thanks for your support, and for taking the time to share this feedback. I do, however, have to point out that 1Password.com isn't a "honeypot" in any sense of the term, as the only thing it gets is encrypted data, and, as with local vaults, only individual users ever have the "keys" to decrypt it: they're literally never transmitted to us, so an attacker can't get them from us. Definitely check out the white paper for more details.

    You're right that 1Password.com is a more interesting target than any individual user will be, but the fact is that it isn't a useful target. We've designed 1Password.com with that in mind. And, apart from our own efforts, we participate in external audits and cooperate with independent security researchers to find any flaws so we can fix them. And again, even if someone is able to get in and take the encrypted database, it's useless to them without your Master Password and Secret Key, so ultimately they'd have to go through you anyway; it would be smartest for them to not waste their time with us and go straight to the source.

    I know it's not the answer you want, but we will never publicly commit to Dropbox, iCloud, or local vaults for the future. Even if we bring local vaults forward in a hypothetical new version of 1Password which does not yet exist, that's not to say that the subsequent version will continue that, especially if the costs we put into building that into a new app far outweigh the return we get on that work in license sales. It's simply impossible to predict the future, and down the road something other than local vaults or 1Password.com may be a better option. So we'd hate to commit to that and either go back on our word when it becomes untenable, or keep our word and hold things back for everyone for the sake of a small, vocal group of people to whom we made a promise.

    And getting back to iCloud and Dropbox, local vaults really depend on these for most people. It's been a long time since the days of using 1Password only on a single device and never having a need to access it anywhere else. And these (or any other 3rd party service you can name) could change at any time and make it problematic, infeasible, or downright impossible to continue supporting them. None of us has any way of knowing.

    That said, I think actions speak louder than words, and if you've been following our releases, you'll have noticed that we've recently put a lot of time and effort into developing and testing support for the new Dropbox API on both Android and iOS...and of course we continue to support our customers syncing with Dropbox or iCloud, using local vaults and licenses, etc. 1Password.com is a better experience, but that hasn't stopped us from helping folks using 1Password 3, which doesn't work with that, or those using newer versions with local vaults.

  • brentybrenty

    AgileBits Team Member

    I wonder how long exactly this is going to go on for before AgileBits realise they're alienating a significant enough proportion of their customer base that they need to change tack. There are literally hundreds of comments about these issues across many threads and blog posts. It's very disappointing to see this.

    @warpspeed: Yeah, it's pretty disheartening. It's certainly a far cry from the blog posts and Tweets entreating people to "Improve your security", often after a major security breach. How? "Use a password manager." Okay, well, that's glossing over a pretty big leap for most people. And at that point, it's sort of like a Danish saying that's something like, "Advice after mischief is like medicine after death," or like kicking someone when they're down while admonishing, "You deserve this because you're not standing up!" I guess I should have seen this coming, but it just never occurred to me before that people who ostensibly prioritize security would be upset that we're offering something that makes security more accessible to a lot of people who would have never been comfortable using 1Password previously — or were, but are quite happy to have better security with less hassle — especially since it takes literally nothing away from them. 1Password.com allows more people to secure their digital lives without having to "appeal to a higher power" — being dependent on someone else to set it up for them. And I guess that's the problem. If this were really about licenses and local vaults, these people wouldn't need to be upset: they still have exactly what they did before we ever introduced 1Password.com. I guess it's a nice feeling to be the "security guru" for friends and family, on Twitter, etc., but everyone deserves security, not just geek elites and those with direct access to them. :(

  • @brenty I'm not objecting to 1Password.com being a thing. Nor is anyone else that I can see. What we're concerned and objecting to is the passive push for everyone to move to that, and the lack of commitment, clarity, and support for standalone vaults and alternate sync via Dropbox et al, in the future.

    Many do not want to use 1Password.com. For whatever reason. But it seems that AgileBits are hell bent on only moving forward with just that. That is the issue. People can see the writing on the proverbial wall. That is, in absence of any clarity on future direction. All we get is professions of how 1Password.com is wonderful (not debating that) and how existing customers will be supported with existing versions. That's the bug bear.

    You guys need to cater for BOTH markets moving forward. The 1Password.com folks AND the standalone/alternate sync users.

  • 1Password is a great app and I love it.

    However, I wonder whether the developers could take a step back and ask why there is a certain amount of pushback (no matter how small) against the subscription model, particularly when there is no choice to purchase the standalone version for the next version of 1Password.

    Thinking philosophically, I think we live in an age of fluidity and uncertainty. Some people embrace either some or all aspects of this, others reject some or all of it. This fluidity is currently expressed in the subscription model. So now, people don't necessarily own anything outright, but they rent something. Things like subscription models give access to software, that isn't necessarily owned outright, but is available for use for a particular time. It's like this with Netflix, Adobe etc.

    I wonder, even though you have come to the conclusion that 1Password.com is the best solution (I have no problem with the subscription model as a business model), whether you could rethink this decision. For me, I don't mind renting things or subscribing to things. But I prefer to own software and to determine when I want to pay, rather than to be coerced into something I'm not entirely comfortable in doing - especially being only to view my data after the subscription has lapsed, for our data!. For people like me, we just want a sense of ownership with some things in our life and not think that we own nothing but the clothes on our backs! DVDs and Blurays still exist and have not been made obsolete!

    I want 1Password to make money. Companies are not charities. But I would ask that you reconsider and give customers the ability to choose between the standalone or subscription models. I keep recommending you guys, but if the subscription model is all there is, then I'm not sure whether I can justify this to others.

    Please reconsider. Just some thoughts.

    PS. I don't necessarily have a problem with cloud syncing - if I don't want something on the cloud, I don't use it. But could it be possible just to have local syncing?

  • jponsjpons Junior Member

    @brenty Thank you for your response, but I have the wholeheartedly disagree with you that 1password.com is not a homeypot, it absolutely is. Although the data is encrypted, 1password.com is still a veritable goldmine of valuable data.

    We know from history that encryption is not infallible and that it oftentimes is broken because of an oversight, mistake or even by design. I am far from being a paranoid person, but the Snowden leaks proven that the US government is hell bent on getting to our information by any means necessary and while I fear them less than malicious hackers, I mostly fear their ineptitude at keeping exploits secret.

    You also state that AgileBits will never publicly commit to local vaults because "you never know what the future will bring" (I am paraphrasing), so by the same logic you could not also commit to 1password.com because you also can't predict what the future will bring in regards to that product. I am sorry but that answer is a complete non answer and a cop out. When creating a product you can make a promise to your customers that you will support a particular feature with whatever caveats you find necessary, such as "while the technology allows" or "while devices allow for local storage".

    I am immensely disappointed that AgileBits is taking 1P in a direction that makes the product less secure and not more, and this is not only my opinion, but the opinion of many security researchers.

    I am afraid that without a change in policy from AgileBits it is time to start looking at alternatives.

    -J

  • brentybrenty

    AgileBits Team Member

    You guys need to cater for BOTH markets moving forward. The 1Password.com folks AND the standalone/alternate sync users.

    @warpspeed: I think we'll have to agree to disagree that there's needs to be an "us and them" and different markets in the first place. But the fact the remains that the two "markets" as you can choose to divide things both have products and support from us. And even if I told you today that we will support local vaults and 1Password.com for the next n years, that could change based on a lot of factors, so we're not making those kinds of pronouncements.

  • brentybrenty

    AgileBits Team Member

    @brenty Thank you for your response, but I have the wholeheartedly disagree with you that 1password.com is not a homeypot, it absolutely is. Although the data is encrypted, 1password.com is still a veritable goldmine of valuable data.

    @jpons: Likewise, I appreciate your position and willingness to discuss this, but that simply isn't the case; and you (or any independent security researcher) are welcome to prove us wrong.

    You also state that AgileBits will never publicly commit to local vaults because "you never know what the future will bring" (I am paraphrasing), so by the same logic you could not also commit to 1password.com because you also can't predict what the future will bring in regards to that product. I am sorry but that answer is a complete non answer and a cop out. When creating a product you can make a promise to your customers that you will support a particular feature with whatever caveats you find necessary, such as "while the technology allows" or "while devices allow for local storage".

    It's true. Ultimately you either trust us or you don't. I think our track record speaks for itself though. And you or anyone else who is using 1Password without a 1Password.com membership today, using versions going back years, are a testament to that.

    I am immensely disappointed that AgileBits is taking 1P in a direction that makes the product less secure and not more, and this is not only my opinion, but the opinion of many security researchers.

    If any of you can actually back that up, we probably have some money for you. But we're not going to hold everyone who appreciates 1Password.com back just so some people can feel more important.

  • jponsjpons Junior Member

    @brenty I find it interesting that you addressed most of my last message but NOT the most crucial part of the message, and that is as follows:

    "We know from history that encryption is not infallible and that it oftentimes is broken because of an oversight, mistake or even by design. I am far from being a paranoid person, but the Snowden leaks proven that the US government is hell bent on getting to our information by any means necessary and while I fear them less than malicious hackers, I mostly fear their ineptitude at keeping exploits secret."

    You care to address this? Is AgileBits claiming that your security and encryption methods are infallible and unbreakable? Is AgileBits willing to back that up with a guarantee?

    If any of you can actually back that up, we probably have some money for you. But we're not going to hold everyone who appreciates 1Password.com back just so some people can feel more important.

    Now I think we have been having a civil conversation and you decide to stoop to insults. N o idea where that came from or why that is necessary. I am not sure how to take this statement any other way but a sign of arrogance.

    -J

  • brentybrenty

    AgileBits Team Member

    1Password is a great app and I love it.

    @jpons: Thank you. That's really good to hear! :chuffed:

    However, I wonder whether the developers could take a step back and ask why there is a certain amount of pushback (no matter how small) against the subscription model, particularly when there is no choice to purchase the standalone version for the next version of 1Password.

    It's absolutely something we'll continue to discuss and evaluate, especially when we go to develop a new version. But I think we're getting ahead of ourselves at this point.

    Thinking philosophically, I think we live in an age of fluidity and uncertainty. Some people embrace either some or all aspects of this, others reject some or all of it. This fluidity is currently expressed in the subscription model. So now, people don't necessarily own anything outright, but they rent something. Things like subscription models give access to software, that isn't necessarily owned outright, but is available for use for a particular time. It's like this with Netflix, Adobe etc.

    That's a really good point. It's definitely a matter of mindset. But I'm not sure that counter-fluidity is really practical in the technology sector especially with regard to security.

    I wonder, even though you have come to the conclusion that 1Password.com is the best solution (I have no problem with the subscription model as a business model), whether you could rethink this decision. For me, I don't mind renting things or subscribing to things. But I prefer to own software and to determine when I want to pay, rather than to be coerced into something I'm not entirely comfortable in doing - especially being only to view my data after the subscription has lapsed, for our data!. For people like me, we just want a sense of ownership with some things in our life and not think that we own nothing but the clothes on our backs! DVDs and Blurays still exist and have not been made obsolete!

    I feel the same way, deep down. I think this is a visceral thing. The problem is it's at odds with reality: software is not owned. When you buy a license, you're paying for permission to use something someone else owns. You can own a car. You can own a house. When you do, you're responsible for maintaining them. If something breaks, you have to fix it or pay someones else to. If you want it to get better, you have to improve it. That sounds like a bum deal, but the payoff is that down the road, you can resell it, maybe even for a profit. But either way, you can get a lot of value out of it in the mean time.

    Conversely, the only value software has is what you get out of it when you use it. You can't resell it, and you and I are surely not going to maintain it and improve it ourselves singlehandedly. It won't get fixed or get better unless someone else does the work, so while I can't speak to the value proposition of others (though I do enjoy Netflix), 1Password.com memberships pay for all of the work we do daily to improve things so that users always have that security and convenience without having to weigh it against paying large sums for a new version, another platform, new features, or compatibility. All of that's included.

    I want 1Password to make money. Companies are not charities. But I would ask that you reconsider and give customers the ability to choose between the standalone or subscription models. I keep recommending you guys, but if the subscription model is all there is, then I'm not sure whether I can justify this to others. Please reconsider. Just some thoughts.

    That's very kind of you. And while 1Password.com is currently our focus, since apps supporting local vaults on all platforms are already there for existing users, we'll continue having these kinds of discussions with folks like you as well as internally as we make plans in the future.

    PS. I don't necessarily have a problem with cloud syncing - if I don't want something on the cloud, I don't use it. But could it be possible just to have local syncing?

    I'm not sure what you're asking. Can you elaborate?

  • Hi folks,

    Long time customer here, and Security Architect, CISSP-ISSAP too, writing about reports of the impending death-by-neglect of local vaults (and cross-posting this to your support email).

    You’ve completely confused the subscription business model with the cloud-only vault storage technical solution. Let’s separate the two.

    I don’t begrudge you the need to establish a better revenue stream by moving to a subscription based licensing model - I’d happily convert over if need be.

    But there is no linkage between that and forcing people to keep their password vaults in the cloud. While for some that makes sense, it absolutely increases the threat landscape. I’ve written about this before, and the responses seem to fall on deaf ears. Let me try again.

    Vault security is based on crypto, which is implement by humans writing code. While the math may be secure, it’s all to easy (and common) for there to be vulnerabilities in the expression of the math in the code. Having all the vaults in a single place makes it a tempting target for an attack, breach and data disclosure. At that point, the attacker can sit and wait - and if a vulnerability is found in your code in the future that reduces the attack complexity, every vault and every password is at risk. Having the vaults is NOT useless to attackers as is being asserted in the forum posts.

    Statements that you don’t have access to decrypt vaults, or ever touch master passphrases are irrelevant to this particular threat. You assume that your code is secure. We assume it isn’t. There is no way that there are no defects in your expression of the crypto in human generated code. Some of those will impact security. Full Stop.

    So my request:

    Stop 1) saying it’s more secure, because it's a lot more complex and nuanced than that. 2) don’t nerf the security of your solution because you need steady revenue. 3) Clearly state that you WILL support local vaults for the long term. ’No plans to remove’ is very different from ‘will keep current with browsers and OS changes’.

    If you need subscriptions, fine, move to that. Adobe and Microsoft did it, and you can too. I’ll be the first to sign up for a subscription version that has local sync support included permanently.

    P.S. All this also ignores offline access to information, which is a feature that I use on a regular basis.

  • brentybrenty

    AgileBits Team Member

    "We know from history that encryption is not infallible and that it oftentimes is broken because of an oversight, mistake or even by design. I am far from being a paranoid person, but the Snowden leaks proven that the US government is hell bent on getting to our information by any means necessary and while I fear them less than malicious hackers, I mostly fear their ineptitude at keeping exploits secret." You care to address this?

    @jpons: Sorry. That's been discussed already, and I didn't realize that you had a question about that. It sounded like you were making a statement.

    Is AgileBits claiming that your security and encryption methods are infallible and unbreakable?

    No.

    But most importantly we're not taking credit for the technologies we're using, industry-standard encryption that's survived decades of scrutiny and attacks. And if a flaw is found in AES, for example, the whole industry will have to adjust (and that's putting it lightly). But the cyphers used in our very first vault formats have not been cracked, nor have those in use today. Again, we don't take credit for all of this, other than doing our homework and making sure that we do our part to implement and test our work thoroughly, and incentivize others to do the same; we're always pushing things forward, and 1Password.com and 2SKD is part of that as well.

    Is AgileBits willing to back that up with a guarantee?

    I don't think this applies.

    Now I think we have been having a civil conversation and you decide to stoop to insults. N o idea where that came from or why that is necessary. I am not sure how to take this statement any other way but a sign of arrogance.

    I'm referring to the internet news that we've been discussing here the past few days. Any security experts are welcome to scrutinize our actual security model and hammer away a the implementation, and get paid for any flaws they find so we can fix them. But security doesn't seem to be the focus at all. :(

  • Michael TsaiMichael Tsai Junior Member
    edited July 12

    The Javascript source to the webapp is pretty easy to get to. We invite anyone to go inspect it.

    Even if I were going to read all your code, I can’t be doing that constantly. If your server gets hacked, it could start sending compromised JavaScript to the browser. Whereas if Dropbox or iCloud got hacked, the attacker would only get access to the encrypted data.

    And I can’t inspect the code of the native app, which also wasn’t an issue before because it could work when isolated from the network.

  • @brenty your answer to me and this page so far this is exactly an example of "on-an-on" marketing rambling which many engineers who used to recommend 1Password do not care for. Answer the questions (which you did not), commit to the answers and move on.

  • jponsjpons Junior Member

    Sooo disappointed with the messaging here. No clear indication where 1P stands on local storage in the long term, very confusing at best.

    I understand those of us who understand the real difference between local and cloud storage are in the minority but I'd like to think we are a minority that recommends 1P most vociferously.

    Just as others have stated, I have no problem with a subscription model, as a matter of fact I welcome it if it means sustaining a well designed and secure product, but I can't support a product that forces users to a less secure storage model.

    Sadly,

    -J

  • brentybrenty

    AgileBits Team Member

    @didenko: What was your question?

  • brentybrenty

    AgileBits Team Member

    Even if I were going to read all your code, I can’t be doing that constantly. If your server gets hacked, it could start sending compromised JavaScript to the browser. Whereas if Dropbox or iCloud got hacked, the attacker would only get access to the encrypted data.

    @Michael Tsai: That's why we have to native apps. They're just as useful whether we're talking about local vaults or 1Password.com accounts. If your browser is compromised that's another matter entirely.

    And I can’t inspect the code of the native app, which also wasn’t an issue before because it could work when isolated from the network.

    We don't design 1Password with the assumption that the user will use it exclusively offline. That's just not how the vast majority of people use it. There's much less use for a password manager in that scenario.

  • BenBen AWS Team

    AgileBits Team Member

    Hi @jpons,

    Have you read our 1Password Security Design White Paper? If so we'd love to hear any feedback regarding the security of storage of 1Password data with the 1Password service.

    http://1pw.ca/whitepaper

    @didenko

    We've been as up front as we possibly can be with the information that we have. We have no plans to remove local vaults from 1Password, though we do not intend to market 1Password as a standalone product. If you are not satisfied with that answer, I understand, but we are not going to be able to make further promises or commitments one way or the other at this point. We're not willing/able to make a statement that potentially backs us into a corner as technology continues to evolve.

    Ben

  • brentybrenty

    AgileBits Team Member

    @jpons: Indeed. No one is being forced to use 1Password.com. If that were the case you'd be using it too, and I can only imagine that's not the case. It's okay if you don't want to. But I hope you'd at least take a look at the security model and give it a try before making up your mind.

  • @brenty listed in the spreadsheet as explained at that comment https://discussions.agilebits.com/discussion/comment/379473/#Comment_379473

  • Michael TsaiMichael Tsai Junior Member

    If your browser is compromised that's another matter entirely.

    Right, but I don't think anyone was talking about that scenario.

    We don't design 1Password with the assumption that the user will use it exclusively offline. That's just not how the vast majority of people use it. There's much less use for a password manager in that scenario.

    My point is that, with the standalone design, it was possible to keep 1Password itself offline and still sync. The password management and syncing services were decoupled (different processes, different companies). I consider that a major feature, and it’s one of the reasons I started using 1Password to begin with. I do realize that this makes things more complicated and probably caused you a lot of support headaches.

  • didenkodidenko
    edited July 12

    @Ben I am not not satisfied with your answer - I do not see that as an answer. My question is basically - what are you selling? Define.. And as you ask me to pay for and "buy into" future versions, I think it is reasonable for AgileBits to bear some risks of commitment on it's end of the stick. Which it seems to refuse.

    Are local vaults going stay for now (how long?) on all platforms, as listed in the spreadsheet? What is about direct syncing matrix between platforms? Can you commit to have local vaults as read-write after a subscription expiration?

    Those are, in my mind, part of your SLA when selling the subscription. What I hear from you is "we are asking you to pay for a service without a clearly defined SLA". If I sign for a year, can you commit to keep local vaults for 3 years? direct sync for three years? local RW forever? all that across platforms and versions?

    It is not that what you are selling is good or bad. It is that you are not telling what you are selling.

  • I have a 1Pasword subscription, and I still have my data not connected to the internet. What am
    I missing?

  • brentybrenty

    AgileBits Team Member

    @dougl: Thanks for reaching out. I'm sorry for the confusion. As mentioned previously, no one is being forced to use 1Password.com. It's okay if you're not interested in that. But I hope you'd at least take a look at the security model and give it a try before making up your mind. And just to clarify, 1Password.com does support offline access to the data in the native apps. I'm not sure we could live without that ourselves.

    You're totally right about the importance of encryption when it comes to 1Password's security. It's pretty fundamental. But I think it's important to note that this applies both to 1Password.com and local vaults. If a flaw is found in AES cyphers, this will affect both (as both are made by the same humans, using the same fundamental technologies) — and pretty much everything else you're using today. If anyone can show us that the 1Password.com security architecture is, in fact, less secure than its predecessors, AgileKeychain and OPVault, we will absolutely stop saying that it's more secure until any issues are addressed and reviewed appropriately.

    Regarding the future, we will not continue updating the current versions indefinitely for browser and OS compatibility, but that's no different than it has been in the past. 1Password 3 and 4 don't work with the latest and greatest either. But the future is unwritten, so we'll definitely talk about future releases when we have something to share in that area. Today though we're very much focused on 1Password.com and the apps we have today.

  • brentybrenty

    AgileBits Team Member

    @didenko: Thanks for clarifying! On to the questions:

    My question is basically - what are you selling?

    We're selling 1Password.com memberships, which include the latest version of all of the 1Password apps, automatic offsite backup, access across all supported platforms (including web), and a lot of other things. The list will change over time, because the feature list will grow. For example, folks who signed up long ago now also have Travel Mode, item history, and a lot of other things which were in addition to the features we had when they started. I can't tell you what will be added there in the future, so it's best to make a decision based on what it has to offer you at present when you're deciding whether to sign up...but that's why we offer it free for 30 days, so people can try it and see for themselves.

    Define.. And as you ask me to pay for and "buy into" future versions, I think it is reasonable for AgileBits to bear some risks of commitment on it's end of the stick. Which it seems to refuse.

    It sounds like you expect us to commit to updating a single version you purchased indefinitely, and that's not something we've ever offered and probably never will.

    Are local vaults going stay for now (how long?) on all platforms, as listed in the spreadsheet?

    As we said previously, we don't know. It's not something we're focused on right now.

    What is about direct syncing matrix between platforms?

    You can see the sync options on our support site.

    Can you commit to have local vaults as read-write after a subscription expiration?

    A 1Password.com account not in good standing has read-only access to the data so it can be viewed and/or exported.

    Those are, in my mind, part of your SLA when selling the subscription. What I hear from you is "we are asking you to pay for a service without a clearly defined SLA". If I sign for a year, can you commit to keep local vaults for 3 years? direct sync for three years? local RW forever? all that across platforms and versions?

    I think it's pretty clear. If you have a 1Password.com membership, you get all the benefits that come with that. If you don't, you don't get those. If you have a license, you get the version and features you're entitled to with that. 1Password.com isn't a layaway program for licenses, if that's what you mean. It's an ongoing service that you can opt-in to (and out of).

    It is not that what you are selling is good or bad. It is that you are not telling what you are selling.

    This article has a list of most of the stuff included in a 1Password.com membership.

  • brentybrenty

    AgileBits Team Member
    edited July 13

    If your browser is compromised that's another matter entirely.

    Right, but I don't think anyone was talking about that scenario.

    @Michael Tsai: Ah, you're right, that wasn't very clear. I was trying to follow your logic from this statement:

    If your server gets hacked, it could start sending compromised JavaScript to the browser.

    Can you clarify "hacked"? Maybe I jumped the gun. What threat are we talking about exactly? My thought was that this is irrelevant if you're using the signed 1Password native apps. We (AgileBits) have a lot more people trying to find weaknesses in our server infrastructure than you and I do making sure we haven't been compromised locally. So I was thinking that you're right that using 1Password.com in the browser would be aa security issue if the browser were compromised. A bit of a tangent, I suppose.

    My point is that, with the standalone design, it was possible to keep 1Password itself offline and still sync.

    Fair enough, but I don't know anyone with a fully internet-isolated secondary WLAN dedicated to local sync. In typical scenarios, people are online when they do this anyway. So 1Password data is end-to-end encrypted, so it doesn't depend on the sync service to protect your data in the first place. You're right that local sync doesn't work with 1Password.com vaults, but we're just not relying on that for security in the first place.

    The password management and syncing services were decoupled (different processes, different companies). I consider that a major feature, and it’s one of the reasons I started using 1Password to begin with. I do realize that this makes things more complicated and probably caused you a lot of support headaches.

    Good points. Honestly, all of this caused users more headaches than it did us. We're nerds. We love troubleshooting stuff. Customers? Not so much. Most people just want things to work. And since we were able to make this easier for people without compromising security, we built 1Password.com. It just wouldn't have been worth the effort otherwise.

  • didenkodidenko
    edited July 12

    I am sorry @brenty, but at this point you are not being honest to say the least. For one I did not sound like I want an indefinite commitment - that is a lie. I have explicitly mentioned version ranges and timeframes in two biggest posts.

    The rest of your post is a reiteration of non-commitment. I understand that is your PR job. The problem is that you are trying to sell a service with a transparency of a product. I do no know how I can make it more clear. Here is another try.

    When you sell a product, you ask for a one-time payment. As such you have no future commitments unless required by regulation or committed yourself. You do not expect future payments - and customers should not expect future deliveries.

    When you sell a service you build your business model on future payments. You expect future payments of a certain amount - and customers rightly expect you to specify future deliveries. Apparently "we will do our best" does not sit well with a vocal portion of your customers. And most of what you wrote in the rest of your post falls into that category - as AgileBits refuse to clarify specific scenarios.

    I got nothing to add about the quality to AgileBits communication. I am outta here - if you do not get this, it has been a waste.

  • dougldougl
    edited July 12

    It's frustrating - they keep on combining cloud syncing and subscription and confusing code risks with crypto risks, which aren't remotely the same. If they simply said "we're keeping local syncing and moving to a subscription model that supports both local and cloud sync" I think most would be perfectly fine with it. But there's absolutely no reason why subscription must be cloud based.

    I'm less worried about long-term commitments, we've never had those guarantees even with 'perpetual' licenses. It's consumer-grade cloud with a consumer-SLA, no different than gmail, icloud, or dropbox. A DDOS is always going to be possible, and they could certainly go out of business. Nothing has changed there. It's the lack of commitment to local sync that's my concern.

    I've just written a post on my blog and sent to my network with a deeper discussion of the issues and risks: https://douglhotka.com/2017/07/12/1password-and-the-loss-of-local-sync/

  • jponsjpons Junior Member

    I think 1P is being tone deaf on this issue. This is very basic.

    A central location for millions of critical and sensitive customer data elements will be inherently a much more attractive target to hackers than a local storage, irregardless of encryption. Assuming both systems are using similar encryption schemes then encryption is not even a factor in the discussion.

    The discussion is then about local individual storage vs. centralized cloud storage.

    Rescinding the long term viability of the local storage feature IS my issue. No matter how much you sugar coat it, a centralized repository of my sensitive information is not something I am interested in using nor something I will recommend to my clients, friends and family. It's that simple.

    -J

  • BenBen AWS Team

    AgileBits Team Member

    @didenko,

    I am sorry @brenty, but at this point you are not being honest to say the least. For one I did not sound like I want an indefinitely commitment - that is a lie. I have explicitly mentioned version ranges and timeframes in two biggest posts.

    We're not in a position to commit to any specific versions or timeframes. All I can say is that we're not planning to remove local vaults. We can go back and fourth all day, but there simply isn't more information available than that.

    @dougl,

    as part of their move to a subscription model, they’re also forcing folks to their cloud service

    No, we're not. While we certainly think that using the 1Password service is the best and most sensible thing to do when paying for the subscription service we're not forcing anyone to do that. Local vaults are still a part of the product, and can be used even if you've never had a 1Password license (but do have a subscription).

    We're also not forcing anyone who has a license to move to a subscription.

    First, they’ve chosen to confuse two completely separate issues – the move to a subscription model (business decision) with the move to a cloud-only syncing solution (technical decision).

    They aren't completely separate. The reason for the subscription model is the service offering. Customers have been asking us for a long time to make syncing and sharing easier. Based on those demands we created 1Password.com accounts. The only way for us to provide this service is as a subscription. We provide the sync service as well as the apps as part of this subscription. The ability to easily share passwords and other important data among family and team members has been immensely popular with our 1Password.com subscription customers.

    They need not be linked.

    But they are linked. With the subscription what you're paying for is both the service and the apps combined. That doesn't mean you have to use both, or either, but you're paying for both. And so they are linked.

    Last, for those with robust passphrases (which I suspect is a minority of users), stolen vaults are likely safe until and unless a defect in the implementation of the crypto is discovered.

    Just to add: customers are also protected by their Secret Key. That isn't an excuse to use a weak Master Password, but it does mean that the encryption keys are strong even if the Master Password is less than ideal.

    For some users, ease of use is a security feature as the alternative is no vault at all. But for others, the tradeoff just isn’t worth it (or even possible under company policy).

    You're absolutely right. And for customers in situations like this we can discuss alternative options. But we've also been fairly successful when approaching companies about the value that the 1Password.com service brings, and have gotten many of them to sign up for our 1Password Teams service.

    All that said, we certainly appreciate the feedback and the time that you took to put it into a coherent blog post. While we may disagree on some of the specifics, I can tell you've got your readers best interests at heart and that you're passionate about the subject. Thanks for sharing your passion. :)

    Ben