6 ms·

> The Bitwarden business model will not change Bitwarden remains committed to A fully featured free version, forever An open source architecture The

> The Bitwarden business model will not change Bitwarden remains committed to A fully featured free version, forever An open source architecture The ability to self-host Advanced business features This is great!

2pEXgD0fZ5cF 4y ago
> This is great! Why? What is a promise like that supposed to be worth? Even if the people making it are completely honest when saying this (which I now doubt), once leadership changes this will go out the window quick. This is in line with "Keeping our users happy is our main priority" and other quotes from the infinite pool of empty PR speak.
Macha 4y ago
If you can trust that will stay at the end of the honeymoon, which is very much not a given in these cases. At least vaultwarden is independent and someone can fork the clients when needed.
- ryukafalz 4y ago
  Right - the benefit of FOSS is that we can keep using it as-is if we need to. I think that leads to excellent business incentives from the user’s standpoint. I’m currently a paying Bitwarden customer for convenience’s sake, but if they start messing it up I’ll just go host it myself.
- zuhsetaqi 4y ago
  How is vaultwarden more independent than bitwarden? Aren't they both FOSS and can be forked?
  - acatton 4y ago
    bitwarden server is mostly written by bitwarden's CTO. [1] If tomorrow bitwarden decides to do "a mongodb" (= violating the AGPL, and make it closed-source), you would have to spin up a new community to maintain the AGPL fork. [1] https://github.com/bitwarden/server/graphs/contributors https://github.com/bitwarden/server/graphs/contributors
    - jacooper 4y ago
      That's only possible if Bitwarden requires a CLA, do they require a CLA for commits/PRs?
      - ksala_ 4y ago
        Yep, https://contributing.bitwarden.com/contributing/#contributor-agreement https://contributing.bitwarden.com/contributing/#contributor...
        falcor84 4y ago
        Yup: Section 2.1: "By submitting a Contribution, you assign to Bitwarden all right, title, and interest in any copyright in the Contribution and you waive any rights, including any moral rights or database rights, that may affect our ownership of the copyright in the Contribution.
        chrismorgan 4y ago
        It’s a fascinating situation, really: this kind of asymmetry (AGPL for you, but not for us, even if you contribute) is antithetical to the purpose of the AGPL, but desirable for the leaders of quite a large fraction of projects that choose the license (to the point that they might either not use the AGPL or not accept contributions if they couldn’t do it).
        rocqua 4y ago
        I think a CLA that says "You provide us with an additional license to re-publish your code under any license we choose" with modifications to limit attribution, might work. That way the code is perpetually AGPL, but the company is free to offer derivative works under other licenses. Hence you can always use your code, you can fork, you can do all you want, and the company cannot take the code, as it stands at that point, away from the public.
      - indigochill 4y ago
  - Macha 4y ago
    Bitwarden/server has some proprietary components: https://github.com/bitwarden/server/tree/master/bitwarden_license https://github.com/bitwarden/server/tree/master/bitwarden_li... Plus it is AGPL + CLA so bitwarden themselves can do what they want
jrootabega 4y ago
"I promise I will never die." - Gary Johnston, Team America: World Police But I agree it's a great thing to strive for.
scarface74 4y ago
How do you trust the word of a company that doesn’t have a profitable business model? Just wait for the inevitable “Our Amazing Journey” post on their website.
- linsomniac 4y ago
  I don't understand, how is their business model not profitable? Their business model is, as I understand it, paid subscriptions.
  - scarface74 4y ago
    Their business model is not profitable by definition if they are spending more money than they are bringing in requiring outside funding.
    - linsomniac 4y ago
      I can see what you mean, but another way of looking at it is: Most investments are done with the expectation of it being worth more down the line, so someone(s) thinks there are a hundred million reasons why it is a profitable business. :-) But maybe "are they profitable" is the wrong question. I remember 5 years ago my brother in law said "Tesla isn't profitable" and I countered with "They don't want to be profitable right now, they are growing an inventory and investing heavily in that. Showing a profit is the last thing they want to do." He seemed to be accept that answer, I mean now he has 2 Teslas. :-)
    - mrweasel 4y ago
      There is the option that they are profitable, but need the investment to expand the business somehow. There is some indication of that in the press release, but it does seem a little fluffy, and a $100M is a pretty big sum of money.
- mrweasel 4y ago
  The way I read it is that they already have one minority investor, Battery Ventures and they are now adding another, PSG. PSG will get a seat on the board of directors, it's unclear if Battery Ventures have a seat. It is also unclear if the two minority investors combined holds a majority. I hope things goes well for Bitwarden, but I'm also expecting an amazing journey in their future. I really doubt that there's enough money to be made as is to yield an acceptable return on investments for the $100M, plus whatever Battery Ventures have already put forward.
rvz 4y ago
> This is great! Keybase said the same thing.
- rocqua 4y ago
  Keybase was providing a solution to something most normal people did not even realize could be a problem. It was a great idea, solving a really big problem. But the awareness of that problem was very small. Hence the ability to monetize a solution aimed at the general public was also very low. I still love the idea, but I don't see how it is a business.
midasuni 4y ago
Why has someone put 100m in? Because they expect 200m back.
- ctvo 4y ago
  *10 billion back.
  - yewenjie 4y ago
    How is that realistic? If they expect to get 10 billion in 10 years, they need to have 100 million paying users (if they charge $10 per user per year), which is like the entire active users count of StackOverflow - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_social_platforms_with_at_least_100_million_active_users https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_social_platforms_with_...
    - CryptoBanker 4y ago
      Getting money back has nothing to do with revenue. It just means the VC was able to sell their shares for that 10 billion -a price which may or may not be related to the company’s actual fiscal performance
    - ctvo 4y ago
      Or they launch entirely new products, in the same general space, with new pricing structures that aren't tied to their current offerings. They're Okta + 1Password + ... To clarify: I'm not sure I buy the above thesis, but VCs don't expect 2x returns at this stage was my general point. They're aiming for higher.
      - wpietri 4y ago
        For sure. The way I sum it up: VCs are looking for 10-to-1 odds on 100-to-1 gains. It depends on the stage, of course. This is listed as a series B, but feels kinda C-ish to me. Later stage rounds like that are unlikely to be 100-to-1, but I agree the goal is still well over 2-to-1.
    - 4y ago
gigatexal 4y ago
I love that they offer a free version and are committed to it. But I depend on it for password management so much so that even if they didn't just raise 100M I'd pay for it in hopes that they stayed around. I think everyone who can, should.
mrits 4y ago
Remind me when they are on their 3rd CEO, 5th product head, and brand new funding sources.
xani_ 4y ago
"Fully featured" does not mean "all features" "Open source architecture" doesn't mean all the parts you need to self host it is open. Their "ability to self-host" already includes having to buy a license to even get 2FA
WhyNotHugo 4y ago
> A fully featured free version, forever It doesn't say they won't have ads or sell your data. Hint: their privacy policy is already terrible. No mention of GDPR or of them complying with any privacy laws. Their privacy policy mentions "EU-U.S. Privacy Shield Frameworks" for exporting user data to the US, a framework which has been declared bogus by the EU courts years ago. > An open source architecture There's no many examples of "open core" calling itself "open source" that if they decide to switch to open core they'll just be another drop in the bucket. They also require contributors to sign a CLA, which is always a huge red flag. > Advanced business features What happened to "fully featured free version" above? Are the business ones separate?

2pEXgD0fZ5cF 4y ago

> This is great! Why? What is a promise like that supposed to be worth? Even if the people making it are completely honest when saying this (which I now doubt), once leadership changes this will go out the window quick. This is in line with "Keeping our users happy is our main priority" and other quotes from the infinite pool of empty PR speak.

Macha 4y ago

If you can trust that will stay at the end of the honeymoon, which is very much not a given in these cases. At least vaultwarden is independent and someone can fork the clients when needed.

ryukafalz 4y ago
Right - the benefit of FOSS is that we can keep using it as-is if we need to. I think that leads to excellent business incentives from the user’s standpoint. I’m currently a paying Bitwarden customer for convenience’s sake, but if they start messing it up I’ll just go host it myself.
zuhsetaqi 4y ago
How is vaultwarden more independent than bitwarden? Aren't they both FOSS and can be forked?
- acatton 4y ago
  bitwarden server is mostly written by bitwarden's CTO. [1] If tomorrow bitwarden decides to do "a mongodb" (= violating the AGPL, and make it closed-source), you would have to spin up a new community to maintain the AGPL fork. [1] https://github.com/bitwarden/server/graphs/contributors https://github.com/bitwarden/server/graphs/contributors
  - jacooper 4y ago
    That's only possible if Bitwarden requires a CLA, do they require a CLA for commits/PRs?
    - ksala_ 4y ago
      Yep, https://contributing.bitwarden.com/contributing/#contributor-agreement https://contributing.bitwarden.com/contributing/#contributor...
      - falcor84 4y ago
        Yup: Section 2.1: "By submitting a Contribution, you assign to Bitwarden all right, title, and interest in any copyright in the Contribution and you waive any rights, including any moral rights or database rights, that may affect our ownership of the copyright in the Contribution.
        chrismorgan 4y ago
        It’s a fascinating situation, really: this kind of asymmetry (AGPL for you, but not for us, even if you contribute) is antithetical to the purpose of the AGPL, but desirable for the leaders of quite a large fraction of projects that choose the license (to the point that they might either not use the AGPL or not accept contributions if they couldn’t do it).
        rocqua 4y ago
        I think a CLA that says "You provide us with an additional license to re-publish your code under any license we choose" with modifications to limit attribution, might work. That way the code is perpetually AGPL, but the company is free to offer derivative works under other licenses. Hence you can always use your code, you can fork, you can do all you want, and the company cannot take the code, as it stands at that point, away from the public.
    - indigochill 4y ago
- Macha 4y ago
  Bitwarden/server has some proprietary components: https://github.com/bitwarden/server/tree/master/bitwarden_license https://github.com/bitwarden/server/tree/master/bitwarden_li... Plus it is AGPL + CLA so bitwarden themselves can do what they want

jrootabega 4y ago

"I promise I will never die." - Gary Johnston, Team America: World Police But I agree it's a great thing to strive for.

scarface74 4y ago

How do you trust the word of a company that doesn’t have a profitable business model? Just wait for the inevitable “Our Amazing Journey” post on their website.

linsomniac 4y ago
I don't understand, how is their business model not profitable? Their business model is, as I understand it, paid subscriptions.
- scarface74 4y ago
  Their business model is not profitable by definition if they are spending more money than they are bringing in requiring outside funding.
  - linsomniac 4y ago
    I can see what you mean, but another way of looking at it is: Most investments are done with the expectation of it being worth more down the line, so someone(s) thinks there are a hundred million reasons why it is a profitable business. :-) But maybe "are they profitable" is the wrong question. I remember 5 years ago my brother in law said "Tesla isn't profitable" and I countered with "They don't want to be profitable right now, they are growing an inventory and investing heavily in that. Showing a profit is the last thing they want to do." He seemed to be accept that answer, I mean now he has 2 Teslas. :-)
  - mrweasel 4y ago
    There is the option that they are profitable, but need the investment to expand the business somehow. There is some indication of that in the press release, but it does seem a little fluffy, and a $100M is a pretty big sum of money.
mrweasel 4y ago
The way I read it is that they already have one minority investor, Battery Ventures and they are now adding another, PSG. PSG will get a seat on the board of directors, it's unclear if Battery Ventures have a seat. It is also unclear if the two minority investors combined holds a majority. I hope things goes well for Bitwarden, but I'm also expecting an amazing journey in their future. I really doubt that there's enough money to be made as is to yield an acceptable return on investments for the $100M, plus whatever Battery Ventures have already put forward.

rvz 4y ago

> This is great! Keybase said the same thing.

rocqua 4y ago
Keybase was providing a solution to something most normal people did not even realize could be a problem. It was a great idea, solving a really big problem. But the awareness of that problem was very small. Hence the ability to monetize a solution aimed at the general public was also very low. I still love the idea, but I don't see how it is a business.

midasuni 4y ago

Why has someone put 100m in? Because they expect 200m back.

ctvo 4y ago
*10 billion back.
- yewenjie 4y ago
  How is that realistic? If they expect to get 10 billion in 10 years, they need to have 100 million paying users (if they charge $10 per user per year), which is like the entire active users count of StackOverflow - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_social_platforms_with_at_least_100_million_active_users https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_social_platforms_with_...
  - CryptoBanker 4y ago
    Getting money back has nothing to do with revenue. It just means the VC was able to sell their shares for that 10 billion -a price which may or may not be related to the company’s actual fiscal performance
  - ctvo 4y ago
    Or they launch entirely new products, in the same general space, with new pricing structures that aren't tied to their current offerings. They're Okta + 1Password + ... To clarify: I'm not sure I buy the above thesis, but VCs don't expect 2x returns at this stage was my general point. They're aiming for higher.
    - wpietri 4y ago
      For sure. The way I sum it up: VCs are looking for 10-to-1 odds on 100-to-1 gains. It depends on the stage, of course. This is listed as a series B, but feels kinda C-ish to me. Later stage rounds like that are unlikely to be 100-to-1, but I agree the goal is still well over 2-to-1.
  - 4y ago

gigatexal 4y ago

I love that they offer a free version and are committed to it. But I depend on it for password management so much so that even if they didn't just raise 100M I'd pay for it in hopes that they stayed around. I think everyone who can, should.

mrits 4y ago

Remind me when they are on their 3rd CEO, 5th product head, and brand new funding sources.

xani_ 4y ago

"Fully featured" does not mean "all features" "Open source architecture" doesn't mean all the parts you need to self host it is open. Their "ability to self-host" already includes having to buy a license to even get 2FA

WhyNotHugo 4y ago

> A fully featured free version, forever It doesn't say they won't have ads or sell your data. Hint: their privacy policy is already terrible. No mention of GDPR or of them complying with any privacy laws. Their privacy policy mentions "EU-U.S. Privacy Shield Frameworks" for exporting user data to the US, a framework which has been declared bogus by the EU courts years ago. > An open source architecture There's no many examples of "open core" calling itself "open source" that if they decide to switch to open core they'll just be another drop in the bucket. They also require contributors to sign a CLA, which is always a huge red flag. > Advanced business features What happened to "fully featured free version" above? Are the business ones separate?