Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by commoner 1611 days ago
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...
2 comments
sebastien_b 1611 days ago
> 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.

link
mbesto 1611 days ago
> 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.

link