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?
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.
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'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?
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.
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.