If you look though this tread, people have tried others and go back to 1Password (including myself and I’ve try news/different ones all the time). There are even Reddit treads people going to and from each password managers.
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
1Password migrants thread
- Thread starter MacBH928
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Is there a link to a page with more info on the redesign?
I would be very wary of using a password manager that is no longer supported. Seems like a high security risk.
dang...
Couldn't you do like Mr. Heckles did, export the vault then re-import it to newer 1password or another password manager? thats what I did.
Weren't you the user who migrated to a combination of Enpass +Bitwarden (which is what I did) or was it another poster?
Nice,
BW's lack of polish/plain looking UI/UX was brought up frequently by users and reviewers. Improving the design, will certainly help them
I do understand that this opinion could produce a visceral negative reaction for some, but I still don't see anything 1Password did that was wrong. By wrong I mean something that caused user harm, either through negligence, ill-intent, or greed. Some might consider any company changing business direction to increase profits to be greedy, but I don't. "greedy" would lose its relevance as a word if it applied to almost every person and company.
I do see that Dave Teare, in a forum post, said that 1Password 7 would continue to support local vaults. (They should have named the version that took that away as 7.5, or something.) I suppose that one might consider a forum post to be a commitment, but I don't. It's also possible to interpret his post about 1Password 7 continuing to support local vaults as an assertion about all past purchases of it and their updates would do so. As long as people who purchased 1Password 7 when it supported standalone vaults could continue to use it, there was no harm in their changing their minds - just disappointment. The only harm I could imagine (and I don't remember whether someone said this happened) is that someone who tried to reinstall lost functionality they previously had. I find it hard to believe that 1Password support wouldn't have assisted with this.
I don't feel 1Password was obliged to provide an upgrade path for people who wanted to continue to use standalone vaults and were on 1Password 6 when Apple abandoned support of that. I also believe that 1Password support would have helped anyone with a locked password vault due to failed update attempt from 6 to 7. Even if they couldn't fix the locked vault, they would have assisted with restoring from the user's backups. If the user didn't have backups, then they would have most of the blame.
The chaos on the App Store with respect to fresh purchases of 1Password 7 is unfortunate. I wonder if the hurdles they had were caused by App Store limitations. They had to continue to support 1Password 7 downloads with the one-time purchase, but disable new purchasers from selecting that. So, they had to have some screen showing the one-time purchase that was in effect. I do wonder how they responded on their forums to complaints about new purchase inconsistencies. But, it certainly didn't serve their interests to have that chaos, so it's very hard for me to believe that it was intentional.
This is a very long thread and I might be missing some detail that would have provided a concise description of wrongdoing. I'm sorry that some are flabbergasted that I don't see it yet. It might have to be chalked up to differing value systems.
I believe some people were keen to continue to use 1Password and felt abandoned that the company stopped offering what they wanted. That disappointment lead to anger. The App Store confusion and the forum post fueled that anger. Apple's dropping support for older software made them desperate. It's just like marriage; sometimes your spouse no longer loves you, goes back on their vows, and files for divorce. I suppose it's a value judgement whether your spouse did something wrong when they just moved on. But you'll always lash out, complain to your friends, and think your ex is evil.
I do see that Dave Teare, in a forum post, said that 1Password 7 would continue to support local vaults. (They should have named the version that took that away as 7.5, or something.) I suppose that one might consider a forum post to be a commitment, but I don't. It's also possible to interpret his post about 1Password 7 continuing to support local vaults as an assertion about all past purchases of it and their updates would do so. As long as people who purchased 1Password 7 when it supported standalone vaults could continue to use it, there was no harm in their changing their minds - just disappointment. The only harm I could imagine (and I don't remember whether someone said this happened) is that someone who tried to reinstall lost functionality they previously had. I find it hard to believe that 1Password support wouldn't have assisted with this.
I don't feel 1Password was obliged to provide an upgrade path for people who wanted to continue to use standalone vaults and were on 1Password 6 when Apple abandoned support of that. I also believe that 1Password support would have helped anyone with a locked password vault due to failed update attempt from 6 to 7. Even if they couldn't fix the locked vault, they would have assisted with restoring from the user's backups. If the user didn't have backups, then they would have most of the blame.
The chaos on the App Store with respect to fresh purchases of 1Password 7 is unfortunate. I wonder if the hurdles they had were caused by App Store limitations. They had to continue to support 1Password 7 downloads with the one-time purchase, but disable new purchasers from selecting that. So, they had to have some screen showing the one-time purchase that was in effect. I do wonder how they responded on their forums to complaints about new purchase inconsistencies. But, it certainly didn't serve their interests to have that chaos, so it's very hard for me to believe that it was intentional.
This is a very long thread and I might be missing some detail that would have provided a concise description of wrongdoing. I'm sorry that some are flabbergasted that I don't see it yet. It might have to be chalked up to differing value systems.
I believe some people were keen to continue to use 1Password and felt abandoned that the company stopped offering what they wanted. That disappointment lead to anger. The App Store confusion and the forum post fueled that anger. Apple's dropping support for older software made them desperate. It's just like marriage; sometimes your spouse no longer loves you, goes back on their vows, and files for divorce. I suppose it's a value judgement whether your spouse did something wrong when they just moved on. But you'll always lash out, complain to your friends, and think your ex is evil.
Different people have different tastes. I used 1PW for years and was happy with it. I probably would still be a customer if they offered licenses when 1PW8 was released. On the other hand, I am extremely happy with Bitwarden and have no regrets about switching.
Exactly my point. But a there are people who try others and go back, I’m one of them.
I actually don't understand visceral hatred of 1Password by some, but I believe the issue is three fold
- Agilebits switched to a subscription based model.
- Local vaults were going to be discontinued in version 8/the subscription model
- Use of Electron as the platform to develop the desktop application
As a business they opted for the subscription model, as a way to provide consistent income and be able to continually provide updates and pay their employees.
I don't understand the move away from local vaults, so I won't defend that move. I do believe taking away a feature was a mistake. Here's the official AgileBits word on the local vault issue
Finally the discussion on Electron for the platform, I think that argument largely died down once people started seeing what apps were using that platform, especially when some of the alternatives to 1PW were found to be using Electron
Yep, and like many overly long threads there's probably pages upon pages of side bar discussions, or discussions not strictly related to migrating off of 1Password. The whole open source vs. closed source is a great example. Helpful especially when you're trying to decide on what password manager to use, but not specifically on the topic
NOT saying this is my argument, but a lot of people in the migrants thread were also upset that you could have your local vault be completely offline and only under your control. By getting rid of local vaults you have to put your vault online.
Oh no question, that was one of my three points of why some folks were/are upsets. I agree, that removing that functionality was wrong. No matter how they spin it, they removed a feature that many folks came to depend on and was a reason to buy 1PW in the first place.
They had dedicated code handling the management and encryption of the local vault. They didn't want to continue maintaining it. I could ask why that is wrong, but my real question is what do you mean by "wrong"?
It is a real shame that Keeper acted in the way they did, as judging by their website they have some solid products. And my one interaction with their support was positive. Although I’m very happy with what I am currently using, for curiosity I intended to take advantage of Keeper’s free 30-day trial offer. However, given their actions I know I would never use their software, and so I thank you for saving me some time!
Last edited:
Many developers add features when rolling out a new version, Agilebits removed a feature that many customers enjoyed. I call that wrong
Those three points are big, but not the whole story. The changes to 1PW8 from 7 coincided with 1PW going multi platform and shifting their focus from consumer purchases to enterprise purchases. 1PW was one of the major Mac apps, an example of why Mac was so great as a development platform and how Apple’s design guidelines, when well applied, could create an experience that was not available anywhere else. Through 1PW7, the app was a native Mac app and 1PW was a champion of Mac development.
That all went away with 1PW8. Electron is useful for Agile
Bits because it easily allows cross platform development, not because it created a better experience for users. Many of us who loved 1PW through 7 felt that 8 was a downgrade in UI and UX (and security, as Electron has more attack vectors than 1PW7 did). Removing beloved features like local vaults and going from one time purchase to subscription, combined with abandoning Mac as the primary platform for 1PW development, felt like AgileBits abandoning its entire ethos in favor of chasing corporate profits. When customers expressed well intentioned concerns (the initial reaction was not overwhelmingly angry, it was more of a how can we constructively move forward in a way that meets user’s needs), Agile Bits reacted defensively and dismissively.
All of this combined told longtime customers, whose support and loyalty got Agile Bits to that point, that we were being taken for granted and were no longer a priority. I’m not saying our needs had to come before anything else, but to tell us if we don’t like it we can leave without any effort to retain us was extremely disappointing and showed just what kind of company Agile Bits had become.
I don’t think they’re evil but they made it clear that they were happy to throw us under the bus when it became convenient for them and that’s not the kind of company I want to do business with if I can help it.
OK. I still don't understand what you mean by wrong. You say what they did was wrong, but that doesn't explain what you mean by that. Some possibilities, and I genuinely don't know which you mean, if any...
- They did something morally wrong. My opinion is they didn't. If there were no competition and they had a monopoly, then a case could be made that they had a responsibility to keep providing the feature. If they held a user's data captive and required it to be place on their servers, then that would be morally wrong.
- They did something that very much against industry norms. I don't think so. Many companies drop features that people count on.
- They did something wrong for their business. Time will tell, but I don't think there's even a slight chance of that.
- They did something that some people don't like. This is certainly true. I don't label such behavior as wrong. You can't please everyone.
There is also the legal implications of it.
Again, I'll bring up an article I posted years ago in PRSI:
Your Digital Trail: Does The Fourth Amendment Protect Us?
Could government agents really get access to all your private data in less than a minute? Experts say no but warn we are moving in that direction.
www.npr.org
The issue here regarding local storage versus having some SaaS holding your data is the implications of search and seizure in the US. If you are in control of your data (read: local storage), the authorities would require a warrant to get to seize your devices and search through them (as they should).
However, with going to any online storage (whether a service they offer, Dropbox, etc.), the companies running or hosting that online storage for you are 3rd party to any investigation you may be under. And as such, no warrant is needed; in fact, only a subpoena is needed. And making that even worse: any clerk of the court can write up their own subpoena and have a judge sign off on it. The problem with that: every single lawyer here in the US is a Clerk of the Court. They could write up their own subpoena, file it, and if the judge signs off on it, can subpoena that 3rd party for your data, and you would not be aware that they did, because by law, that Clerk of the Court would not need to notify you of that subpoena; you would be 3rd party to that subpoena.
So by going with that subscription and having the SaaS hold your data, you essentially may be indirectly waiving your 4A right against search and seizure. I'd rather not take such a risk for the sake of new features.
BL.
Its not right that they removed a feature that people used and liked. I'm not sure how else to put it
There is also the legal implications of it.
Again, I'll bring up an article I posted years ago in PRSI:
Your Digital Trail: Does The Fourth Amendment Protect Us?
Could government agents really get access to all your private data in less than a minute? Experts say no but warn we are moving in that direction.
The issue here regarding local storage versus having some SaaS holding your data is the implications of search and seizure in the US. If you are in control of your data (read: local storage), the authorities would require a warrant to get to seize your devices and search through them (as they should).
However, with going to any online storage (whether a service they offer, Dropbox, etc.), the companies running or hosting that online storage for you are 3rd party to any investigation you may be under. And as such, no warrant is needed; in fact, only a subpoena is needed. And making that even worse: any clerk of the court can write up their own subpoena and have a judge sign off on it. The problem with that: every single lawyer here in the US is a Clerk of the Court. They could write up their own subpoena, file it, and if the judge signs off on it, can subpoena that 3rd party for your data, and you would not be aware that they did, because by law, that Clerk of the Court would not need to notify you of that subpoena; you would be 3rd party to that subpoena.
So by going with that subscription and having the SaaS hold your data, you essentially may be indirectly waiving your 4A right against search and seizure. I'd rather not take such a risk for the sake of new features.
BL.
I was asking for a definition of "wrong" as it relates to what 1Password did. Perhaps you're suggesting that another definition of "wrong" is that they made a poor technical decision, for the reason you mention.
Again, changing their business model isn't wrong; however, them changing their business model was duplicitous as they had stated to their existing user base that they were not going to make such a move that impacts their functionality; they subsequently did. They could have dealt with the initial backlash of the changes to the business model if they hadn't made the statements that they made. However, they now not only had to deal with that backlash, but the betrayal of those existing users who were initially told that nothing was going to change.
As for the 4A implications, I'm stating that to build on the additional issues that were pushed onto existing and current users. Now, I will caveat that by saying that 1Password isn't the only company dealing with that issue; every SaaS has that issue, and every single user of those services need to be aware of what they are getting into prior to signing up for that subscription.
BL.
OK. It's clear I won't get to an understanding of what you mean. "It's not right" just means "It's wrong". "wrong" has many definitions in the dictionary. I'm sure you mean one of them.
I can't think of any definition of "wrong" that I would apply to removing a feature that people used and liked. I don't think that Apple did wrong when they dropped support for 32-bit apps. But unlike 1Password, Apple is very close to holding people captive and forcing them to suffer with that decision; customers of 1Password can just use a different product. With some research, someone could come up with hundreds of examples of companies dropping features people used and liked. Heck, sometimes companies discontinue altogether products that people used and liked.
OK. So by wrong you mean changing their mind from something they said in a forum post. That's a clear definition.
In my value system, that wasn't a wrong, unless people who purchased 1Password when it had the feature they wanted, lost the use of that feature.
Did I say that it was wrong? I stated multiple times here that changing their business model isn't wrong; in fact, they are well within their right to do so. How they handled their existing customers and going the complete opposite direction of what they told their existing customers is wrong. That is a MAJOR distinction being overlooked.
BL.
Listen, I'm asking for a definition of wrong that people use when assigning it to a particular thing. It's clear that no one wants to define it, they just want to keep choosing things that they apply it to. I retract my question.
- Why question was just fleeble.
- Could you define "fleeble"?
- I'm only saying that my question was fleeble, there's not much more that I can say.