[mbesto]

> Because much like privacy, password security shouldn't always be only a premium option.

So then who foots the bill? Password managers are the duct tape used to protect a user because we don't inherently trust application providers.

> proprietary code is a deal break for lots of people

Sort of. First, "lots of people" seems like "lots of people" because we're on HN. The wider population doesn't care whether your application is proprietary or not - they just want something that works. Apple's wall garden is proof of this. Second, you can still charge for a product and it be open source. An application being open source simply provides an audit log of the code and allows for "wisdom of the crowd" when it comes to bug and security issues. So yes I agree that having a password manager be openly auditable is a great feature, but I (and many others) likely would rather have the features of strong UX and known tenure (OSS tools get abandoned all of the time) then we would having an auditable source code.

[commoner]

Bitwarden does charge for certain features like TOTP support, organizations, and enterprise features. They manage to have subscription income while remaining open source, whereas 1Password chooses to keep its code closed source.

If you are saying that Bitwarden is worse because it offers a free plan, I disagree. It's nice that Bitwarden offers a security-audited* password manager to those who can't afford a subscription, who aren't ready to pay for one, or who don't have the means to make payments online. Unlike 1Password, Bitwarden is not pressured to deliver high returns to venture capital firms, and Bitwarden can focus on providing its product to its users at superior price points.

* https://bitwarden.com/help/article/is-bitwarden-audited/#thi...

[sebastien_b]

> Unlike 1Password, Bitwarden is not pressured to deliver high returns to venture capital firms, and Bitwarden can focus on providing its product to its users at superior price points

Well said - and this is the important part of the 'non-proprietary' argument of mine (above) - right now I consider 1Password's real customers being their shareholders/investors, not its users - the users are just another tool they use to bring value to their real customers (investors,etc.).

BitWarden's customers are their actual users.

[mbesto]

> If you are saying that Bitwarden is worse because it offers a free plan, I disagree.

For the record, I'm not. The overall discussion was that charging for a product was somehow bad. Bitwarden does charge for their product, just at higher tier levels. My bigger point is that you do want a provider that is going to stay solvent so charging money (which Bitwarden also does) is not some perverse way of satisfying customers.

[sebastien_b]

> So then who foots the bill?

Whoever wants to pay. Doesn't mean a product should be dismissed simply because it's "free".