this post was submitted on 20 Oct 2024
626 points (87.4% liked)

Technology

60033 readers
2895 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.


Our Rules


  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related content.
  3. Be excellent to each another!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, to ask if your bot can be added please contact us.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed

Approved Bots


founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 17 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I wonder~ I wonder~ I wonder whyyyy...

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I don't understand.

Are you saying it's a bait and switch like Google, where they suck people in with a good product then enshittify it once they're hooked?

[–] [email protected] 4 points 2 months ago (1 children)

I'm not thoroughly aware of their dealings, but these amounts of private investment aren't going to pay for themselves. If you raise 100 million, investors typically want a billion back, or more.

From the looks of it, Bitwarden might've tried to go with the Open Source model to get free development resources, trust (because it's an open source PASSWORD manager), and general goodwill. But now that they've deemed that got enough of a market share (or investors are starting to breathe down their necks), it's time to start raising the walled garden.

Even if they claim after the fact that it was a "Bug" that the client couldn't be built without their proprietary sdk. The very fact one exists is a bad enough sign, specially when its influence is spreading.

VC is a devil's bargain. Raising VC money is NEVER a good sign.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 2 months ago

Yeah well said. Looking forward to the day they try to force an "updated" privacy policy on users, or start charging 69.99/year.