Well, there is the problem, isn't it? If people aren't willing to pay what amounts to a cup of coffee a month for a service they rely on daily, how are companies supposed to build a sustainable business without raising money?
Now that every single damn service out there is costing me a cup of coffee every month, I end up paying a couple of coffee jugs a month. Are we seriously going to shame customers for trying to cut some costs in this economic context?
As a customer, what I can do is compare with the competition. Padloc is more expensive than basically every other option out there. And as far as we can tell, Bitwarden was already running privately before this VC round (which seems aimed at expanding their offerings past password management) which doesn't seem to point to it being unprofitable at its current price point.
> Are we seriously going to shame customers for trying to cut some costs in this economic context?
That all depends on the margins of what is being offered. If you are proposing they sell a dime's worth of product for a nickel, then I would see the above post as a much more polite version of the correct response, which is "get lost."
I have no idea of the margins, and expecting customers to know about your operating costs without either disclosing them outright or asking the question is an... interesting take. All I can realistically do is compare with the competition, and the competition is cheaper across the board. Therefore my initial comment.
I'd have no problem paying more for a good product if it brings me something. In the meantime, I'm still left pondering. "Get lost" would be a rather crappy way to treat customers simply asking questions, wouldn't it?
I wish we’d stop with the cup of coffee comparison. Not everyone lives in the USA and drinks Starbucks. A cup of coffee costs 0.70€ where I live¹, cheaper than the cheapest (non-free) App Store app. Furthermore, I don’t drink coffee.
For me it’s not about the price but the recurring cost and the lock in. I’d rather pay a larger sum upfront when I’m sure I can afford it and reevaluate when it’s time to upgrade than be sucked dry bit by bit and have to drop everything to scramble to find an alternative when the developer decides to remove features and jack up the price overnight as they keep the data hostage.
¹ Smaller than a Starbucks coffee, but also higher quality.
Totally agree. Every single new subscription product someone buys that can't be run independently or avoid updates adds tech debt to their personal life. At some point that product will be killed, degraded, or made much more expensive. Software that can be purchased once and run indefinitely is all upside on the long tail.
I wish more companies followed the Jetbrains model where a subscription buys lasting access to the current version and recurring payments gets you continuous updates. It's easy to see why companies mostly avoid this model though; it's easier to squeeze users for money when you have them held captive.
