When I was evaluating which password manager to use I instantly favoroud 1password, but not having the possibility to self host my data was non-negotiable for me.
I will definitely stay up to date whether this really comes or not.
If you stop paying them, you stop being able to update your passwords. Also if you can't connect to their servers, you can't synchronise your passwords between devices. Also non-US companies will have a concern about storing sensitive material on US-based services given the powers the US is giving itself regarding intercepting communications or seizing data centres.
You are not storing passwords in plaintext on their servers. They are very open and document on how it works. Basically you give them fully encrypted information they can‘t use for anything
"Fully encrypted" doesn't matter if an attacker finds a vulnerability in 1Passwords encryption, or simply gets hold of the cipher text and has time and money on their side.
This is pretty fundamental security practise: don't give people stuff they don't need to have, and that means you face less risk of that stuff being lost or misused.
FWIW, though it's hard to find nowadays AFAIK the standalone license is still offered and I still use mine with the latest version. You can use unlimited local vaults and network sync them via Dropbox (or a janky WiFi thing). The local sync hasn't gotten any TLC in a while but it works same as always without any limits.
And this whole discussion is because they’ve announced that will be dropped with version 8. No more standalone licenses, local vaults or syncing via Dropbox/iCloud. Even this (potential) “self-hosted” option sounds ridiculous; users are going to have to run a version of their cloud server locally and use that for syncing instead of just having a vault they can sync locally or through the service of their choice.
Yeah, I just noticed that though too late to edit my post to note it :(. Sounds like they plan to nuke the native Mac application, the core original value proposition, in favor of some cross platform Electron thing as well. Oh well, it had a good run, but the business incentives are pretty inexorable forces I guess when they're aiming for a multi-billion valuation cash out.
Although devil's advocate:
>users are going to have to run a version of their cloud server locally and use that for syncing instead of just having a vault they can sync locally or through the service of their choice.
I don't see that as inherently ridiculous if it genuinely was a full standalone version with no internet dependencies. Lots of local software going back ages and ages in Unix splits up "server" and "client" sides of things and it can be a sensible architecture in some instances and does not by itself mean anything bad. Like, I don't see what your issue would be vs "sync locally", if it's all under your control, potentially on the same system even, how would that not be merely another way to sync locally just a different implementation? And I don't see the value of "a service of my choice" vs literally just being able to run it as my own service. "Service of my choice" should mean who provides the VPS or colo or whatever, or what VPN I use to access my own local server. A true self-host eliminates the need for Dropbox or iCloud which is fine by me.
Of course this being modern AgileBits I kind of expect a fairly large number of asterisks here that neuter it in practice. But then again that they are even asking at all is something I wouldn't have predicted, I guessed they'd eventually attempt to full force everyone into their subscription model and that would be the end of my 1P upgrades/usage. Maybe it will be anyway if the application starts sucking even harder moving forward, but local host on a normal pay model could change my mind.
I will definitely stay up to date whether this really comes or not.