361–370 of 522 posts
It would be cool if there were a Bitwarden "extension vault" that is only accessible so long as you are employed somewhere and which suggests rotation as part of offboarding etc. Anyway, congratulations and good luck.
How much would I pay for that? Perhaps with ACLs and stuff I think $10 / user-month
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's also useful for things like secure temporary password delivery. I set up your account for the first time with a new service, generate a temp password you have to reset on first login, and then share it to your Password Manager space. Also just useful for things like API keys - my team just has all of our team's allocated API keys for various services in our password manager so we don't have to go look them up in…
I understand the temporary password use case. But what do you do when an employee leaves? Do you change all of the API keys?
I'm not referring to Bitwarden here but isn't this the standard M.O. of any SV startup? 1. Release great product for free 2. Attract as many free users as possible to signal growth to investors 3. Keep running the unprofitable free tier at a loss as long as possible using your massive VC war chest, while locking in your users with various gotchas 4. Once you reach critical scale and gained mass user adoption and you'…
Full disclosure, I'm a paying user of Bitwarden. I think for BW this kind of falls apart at #3. The main draw of this product for me and many others is that it's actually pretty no-frills. It's also broadly compatible with importing and exporting between dozens of other password managers. That said, this could be a blind spot for me. Let me know if there's any gotchas I should know about here.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ah, the lifecycle of a company. I think of the first rounds of funding as a sort of puberty. Going public is the mid-life crisis, signaling the downward spiral towards inevitable death. Of course, being bought out is like God taking Enoch directly to heaven, where who knows what happens. Those large companies with unnatural lifespans have somehow tapped into the deep, dark magic of the Elder Ones (usually government…
>Those large companies with unnatural lifespans have somehow tapped into the deep, dark magic of the Elder Ones (usually government contracts) Or, you're Apple, and your cloud hosts the digital lives of all your users from teenage years to adulthood, so they're not gonna switch to any competitor no matter what.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Maybe there is an enterprise play somewhere The post mentions the plan to implement advanced business features, and also "Business users deserve consumer ease-of-use along with advanced integration and deployment features."
That just makes it worse. I'm a paying customer right now. VC + focus on business means the consumer stuff dies or gets neglected to the point that it should die. All resources get moved to the high-growth parts of the business once VC enters a company. Bitwarden will not be the first to get VC to change its operating principles.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Isn't bitwarden[0] already open source and aren't you just asking people to trust you till you take VC money? [0] - https://github.com/bitwarden/server
Not only that but even the clients are open source ( https://github.com/bitwarden/clients ). There's even an unofficial Rust reimplementation of the server which is even better. Parent post is spreading FUD on this one.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The people at Bitwarden and their supporters need to answer 1 simple question. How do they increase their valuation 10+x without pulling those tricks. Because that's what the VC funding demands. No VC is giving out $100mm for a 20% or even 100% return, which could possibly be achieved by simple growth. They're giving that money because they're expecting exponential return. Maybe there is an enterprise play somewhere…
> Maybe there is an enterprise play somewhere The post mentions the plan to implement advanced business features, and also "Business users deserve consumer ease-of-use along with advanced integration and deployment features."
Earlier quoted context omitted.
C# is a rarity in SV and startups in general. There's a resourcing constraint for a team hiring only geographically in SV. SV and startups are dominated by JavaScript/TypeScript and Python. It makes the parts of the team a bit more plug-n-play and in some calculus, makes it easier to grow the team as the company grows. There's also a bit of cultural asymmetry that may make it harder to hire experienced senior C# engi…
IOW, it's a weird SV bubble thing. I get the idea that most developers in SV don't know C#/.Net, that happens everywhere. Some areas are java, some .net, some Ruby/Python. What I was surprised about was this weird rationalization that C#/.Net was somehow dangerous to a startup. Not only is that not true, C#/.Net is going to be better for a startup long term due to the stability that comes with that ecosystem that you…
It's "dangerous" in some scenarios for sure.
1) You want to hire locally in SV; there just isn't a concentration of developers there.
2) You want to hire senior resources for your *startup*; I emphasize startup because you're comparing apples to oranges when comparing startup to enterprise. C# is heavily used in enterprise so a startup competing for senior resources might be fighting an uphill battle
3) You want to make sure your team is plug-n-play; there's an abundance of JavaScript, TypeScript, and Python developers. For this reason, it's probably not a great idea to choose Go or Rust because now you're competing against Google and low number of senior Rust developers in general.
4) You want a full stack team; if you hire C# backend, you'll need to train your JS/TS front-end folks to be full stack. If you're full stack C#, well, you're not going to have a good time unless your app is desktop.
----
I'm a big time advocate for C# and part of the reason I joined my current startup was to see what sort of crazy team would pick C# for a SV backed startup, but I can also see the flip side of the coin.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Maybe there is an enterprise play somewhere The post mentions the plan to implement advanced business features, and also "Business users deserve consumer ease-of-use along with advanced integration and deployment features."
That just makes it worse. I'm a paying customer right now. VC + focus on business means the consumer stuff dies or gets neglected to the point that it should die. All resources get moved to the high-growth parts of the business once VC enters a company. Bitwarden will not be the first to get VC to change its operating principles.
I wonder, aren't the majority of HNers working at a for-profit company funded by VCs?
The hypocrisy is just intolerable at this point.