How is it free https://bitwarden.com/pricing/business/ when it costs money?

Perhaps you wanted to link to their Open Source project https://github.com/bitwarden ? Their software seems open source indeed, but https://bitwarden.com is anything but free 😛

Reminder: VaultWarden exists, and seems to be easier to self host.

As I have mentioned many times in conversations over here (the fedi) 😀 - saying "Bitwarden is a free open source password manager for computers and mobile devices." then link to a paid service is confusing. This is my main point.

I understand the context behind FOS, but the wording is confusing, so much so that I suspect many, including @FediFollows are confusing in this case the Bitwarden client/server software that is Open Source, with the services that they provide. Else they should have directly link to the Github page.

We have to be careful of such muddying of the software waters. Many companies do this on purpose so we must not be naive. ;)

Hey Tio, appreciate the discussion and just wanted to clarify that the Bitwarden website allows for creation of free accounts (unlimited passwords on unlimited devices) and download of free clients. Optional paid plans can be layered on to, but the free account includes the core features required to manage secure credentials. Paid plans help fund free accounts and costs related to development, maintenance and support.

Hi there. I fully understand that. It is great that you open sourced your software. However isn't your free plan freemium? Meaning, can we define it as such?

Freemium, a portmanteau of the words "free" and "premium," is a pricing strategy by which a basic product or service is provided free of charge, but money (a premium) is charged for additional features, services, or virtual (online) or physical (offline) goods that expand the functionality of the free version of the software.

The "free" plan lacks certain features such as:

I was talking about the post in question. It says "Bitwarden is a free open source password manager for computers and mobile devices." then it links to a website where it clearly charges you money for it, and it is true they also provide a freemium plan (mind you, not free).

@Humane Tech Now Would you say Youtube, Gmail, Google Drive, Facebook, or Google Maps are free?

There are a lot of great articles on FOSS out there, including that many offer paid options to compliment and continue to offer free services. If there was cap on passwords or device limits, that could be an issue, but for an open source password manager, it does just that, manage your passwords, unlimited, for free. You can also self-host. Paid plans offer further functionality but do not take away the core experience.

I do not try to say you are without reason to implement such marketing schemes, and if the money goes towards the support of the software itself then that's great. But from the official definition/understanding of the concept of freemium, Bitwarden does provide a freemium account.

Google and the like use such schemes too, and provide a limited version of their software to then gain more paid subscribers. How is Bitwarden different in that regards? I would not call Youtube, Gmail, Google Photos and the like free. They are paid services + freemium accounts + ad-based access and such. But they are clearly not free, you trade something for these services: currency, data, attention (via ads).

So for you something is free if the source code is open and you can use it to self host?

There are healthy FOSS models where developers erect a company and earn a living from it, right?

When you sell your product you are entangled with your "clients".

I gave an example of Standard Notes. They open sourced their client/server yet they are selling subscriptions via their servers. They also limit, like Bitwarden, the "free" subscription. So they provide freemium accounts + paid for.

Because many started to use their software and self host + provide free (completely free not freemium) access to the public, Standard Notes made it much more difficult to self host and I had the "opportunity" to talk to them about this since we were also self hosting. And indeed they admitted the decisions were mostly for their financial gains since so many were providing Standard Notes for free, and that takes away from their profits.

That's the catch here and I am not accusing these people really. The developers need financial support indeed. But please do understand that when they sell their product, even if it is FOSS, their decisions will be biased. They are under pressure.

So eventually we did not host Standard Notes anymore since it became more and more difficult to do so.

I hope you see my point.

I think that is a great question and I would say that the main difference is that Bitwarden community members are not the product, we never sell your data or serve you ads.

If you are interested, you can also check out a recent article from our CEO on this issue: https://bitwarden.com/blog/defining-and-sustaining-value-for-bitwarden-users/

And let me know what you think.

The FOSS discussion is definitely a big one, with proponents on both sides of the equation.

I am reading through the article.

You are saying:

Having a fully featured free version is key to enabling the Bitwarden vision of a hack-free world.

But the "free" plan only has "Bitwarden Send for direct encrypted sharing" for Text and not for files; the "Two-step Login" feature is missing options such as "YubiKey, FIDO2, Duo"; missing "Encrypted File Attachments", missing "Bitwarden Authenticator (TOTP)". So the free version is for sure not "fully featured". Am I correct to say that?

Bitwarden as a company continues to grow sustainably and quickly by serving users who can afford to pay, in particular businesses with Teams and Enterprise plans.

You see after writing several books about corruption, looking at the software world too, and broken promises. After a decade of seeing endless examples of companies promising this or that, I find it so hard to believe any words coming from a company. Here's the basic why:

If I sell tomatoes, I can never afford to tell people to go to the other shop because they have better and cheaper tomatoes. I will lose customers...

In other words, you are selling Bitwarden subscriptions. You need to keep on doing that by all means, else (unfortunately) you can go bankrupt. This is an entanglement I personally cannot ignore nor should anyone else do. I have used a similar service in terms of the marketing approach: Standard Notes. They also have a strong "manifesto". And yet they started to make it harder for others to self host because they were losing money from self-hosters providing free Standard Notes services for the public.

If you made it more and more easy to self-host Bitwarden and more and more would self host and provide free (not freemium) access to the public, you are in danger of going bankrupt. And this truly sucks and I can never use words like "grow sustainably".

I truly hope you understand my points here.

No, you are twisting my sentence. The wording was "free open source", that's different than saying something is free.

Sorry not intentionally. So "free and open source" can be paid for, and "free" can be money free. And vice versa. May not be confusing for you, but for me it is very much so, and for pretty much everyone who does not strongly grasp what FOSS is.

You seem to say that as soon as the word "free" is in the text, you are only allowed to link to the GH repo.

If I tell people that Nextcloud is a free Google Drive alternative I'll make sure not to link to their Enterprise Business Plan. It is a nice way of keeping yourself honest and not confuse anyone. I would not direct people to MegaSync and say "Megasync is a free open source file hosting for computers and mobile devices.". Their client is Open Source and even if their server would also be, it is misleading.

What if repo README only held dev compile instruction, and the site offered full documents, transparency on offerings, accessible, easy-to-navigate.

Simple, link to the page where they provide that "free open source" part of their project. Regardless if it is on their website or github.

Yes thank you but I looked at it and I would not say that I provide free (libre) hosting, but the opposite: paid for. You see we may have deep disagreements as to what is "free", but for me when you trade something in order to get something else in return, it is not free. WebApe is separate from our trade-free services such as trom.tf for a reason. To not muddy the concept of free. I provide paid-for services via WebApe, non-free (trade-based), but free services (trade-free) via trom.tf. That's the difference.

Thank you for the submission tho, I appreciate it.

I understand but them saying "Bitwarden is a free open source password manager for computers and mobile devices" they should have at least linked to that, rather than to a page where they talk about prices. We can leave it at that, but if this is confusing for me, I bet it is confusing for pretty much everyone who is not a "software nerd" and into "FOSS".

And there is no reason to make things confusing:

Bitwarden provides a client/server software that is open source, thus anyone can self-host it. Here you can read more https://bitwarden.com/open-source/

Bitwarden also provides freemium + paid-for services here https://bitwarden.com/pricing/

Done. Easy. 😀

The reason why this is confusing is because we use the word free to mean different things. Free in FOSS is short for freedom, but maybe a better alternative is to use words like libre which some people already do. FLOSS is Free/Libre open source software, this might make more sense. In the end, the language is what's causing a lot of confusion here.
@FediFollows @humanetech @bitwarden

And I do agree that when calling something like Nextcloud as FLOSS then its better to link to the Github page or wherever they provide documentation for the software. You could add to that by saying they also offer paid for services and then link to their services page, this will clear all confusions.
@FediFollows @humanetech @bitwarden

Here again, better wording solves the issue - #WebApe is a paid for service that helps you host and maintain servers for FLOSS programs like Mastodon, Peertube, etc.
@FediFollows @humanetech @jonatasbaldin @bitwarden

It is muddying when some go in-between. And they provide some free hosting for example, but limited, and then paid for plans. So then others think that Bitwarden is free, while missing out on the fact that it is "Bitwarden minus certain features" that is "free". I am also not saying all of these people are willingly deceiving the rest, but I do say that many many companies do. They lure you in with their "free" plans, freemiums or ad based or data collection tactics, to then grab your currency too.

I remember when Google Photos offered unlimited storage, to then 2 years later stopping that and now millions of users had lots of photos stored there, so what would they do? Well pay for it to be able to keep on using that "unlimited" service. My mother was in that sort of situation and then we felt forced to pay for it eventually.

‘fully featured’ is referring to do what the name of the product is, to be a password manager, you can store and manage an unlimited number of passwords on any number of devices. There is no cap on password storage or device limits, the other features are not required to fill this promise and are available on other plans for those seeking it.

So fully featured means without those features that are for the paid subscriptions... Because you are saying the features included in the "free" version are full enough for a password manager. Ok. I find the wording and the explanation very confusing. TOTP, YubiKey, FIDO2, Duo can be seen as essential for a password manager. TOTP especially.

I am also concerned that in the future you may add more features that are necessary, but only for the paid subscriptions. I've seen this before.

We all due respect, I do not trust Bitwarden and their future plans, their promises and approach. Like I do not for pretty much any company out there. I've seen this scenario play many times. It is fine, we can leave it as such and I hope you prove me wrong!

Please take my criticism as constructive. I am all for providing free access for people, for all kinds of services. We provide over 20 at https://trom.tf/ and we do so because of the FOSS community.

dude I think the conversation is already over and you’re just stretching it. Lots of FOSS projects offer their own hosting services too, which they HAVE TO charge for. Bitwarden seems to be doing the same. If you don’t like that, you can simple host it on your own without limitations if I understand correctly. And that still falls under the FOSS category, actually, that’s the proper definition of a FOSS project

Lots of FOSS projects offer their own hosting services too, which they HAVE TO charge for.

Yes unfortunately they have to charge for such services. I understand that. But making it clear what is free and what is not, should be a priority. Bitwarden provides an Open Source client/server (software). Bitwarden also provides a freemium account + paid-for accounts via their https://bitwarden.com business. Easy. We made it clear now.

All I am doing is making people aware that when you sell something, you are extremely prone to bias, corruption, deceiving others, and so on. I have showcased in this book a plethora of examples https://www.tromsite.com/books/#flipbook-df_6562/1/ - and overall in our books here https://www.tromsite.com/books.

Let's take Matrix/Element for example. Matrix is the server, Element is the client (chat). https://matrix.org/ is the main server website. They separate the two quite a bit. I cannot see prices on the matrix website for instance. On the same website they encourage the use of any other client not just Element - https://matrix.org/docs/projects/try-matrix-now/ . Which tells me that they are more honest and less biased towards their own client.

On the Element website however (the client) https://element.io they provide paid for services as in "hosting and setup - services", but as far as I can tell they do not touch the software. No "minus features". This means they do not use the software as the product, but services. Much much better. Less entanglement. Actually even if you use their default app https://app.element.io/#/login they make it easy for you to add your own matrix server and login with that. I do not see this as an option for Bitwarden https://vault.bitwarden.com/#/login

Overall Matrix + Element provide open source software (server/client) and sell some services without removing features from the software itself. Thus they are prone to less bias I would argue. Maybe that's why they let you use their Client with any Server, directly from their own website. And perhaps they can do all of this because they get enough funds from all sort of sources, so they don't have to sell that much.

I think the reason you’re making this such a huge deal is because you’re trying to impose a personal business philosophy over a FOSS company that follows a traditional framework of approach to business. Which is in bad faith given that you know running a business is extremely difficult, and also because almost every other FOSS company that offers their own services does so in the same manner: eg: element chat.

Yes, this is why I say better wording solves all confusions 😁
@FediFollows @humanetech @bitwarden

element and bitwarden are doing the same thing: as element is offering bridges and continuous support in return of money, given that it takes manpower and electronic resources to do so. That's exactly what bitwarden seems to be doing.

Bitwarden provides freemium accounts and call them as "free". This is confusing and disingenuous. Bitwarden does not seem to promote other servers for when you try to login with their own online app. Bitwarden overall sells software-features + services, while matrix/element only sells services.

That sounds much better! Let me know if/when you do that.

you're arguing over semantics, that's literally all you did mate. Something that anyone who has spent 5 minutes studying FOSS trends understands. If it was extremely confusing, that could've been a different debate.

Semantics have to do with words, but Bitwarden provides a less featured software for their "free" account. Those are not words, just facts. And we refer to this as freemium.

Freemium, a portmanteau of the words "free" and "premium," is a pricing strategy by which a basic product or service is provided free of charge, but money (a premium) is charged for additional features, services, or virtual (online) or physical (offline) goods that expand the functionality of the free version of the software.[1][2] This business model has been used in the software industry since the 1980s.

Google, Facebook, Microsoft and pretty much all companies use such tactics. Not accusatory in this context, but just saying it is not mere semantics, it is a marketing strategy.

youre literally asking them to provide you with completely free of cost hosting and pay for it all from their own pockets. Which is simply going to drive their business to a ground, given that there has to be some way for them to earn some money to keep the project running.

youre literally asking them to provide you with completely free of cost hosting and pay for it all from their own pockets.

I never asked for such a thing. I host 20+ services via https://trom.tf/ and I am considering hosting Vaultwarden (a Bitwarden fork) there too, trade-free. No freemiums and such.

What I asked is for them to admin that their "free" plan is freemium, and for others who talk about such pieces of software to differentiate between the software itself that can be called "free and open source" and the services that these companies provide, that are trade-based / freemiums.

there has to be some way for them to earn some money to keep the project running.

Unfortunately in this world this is the case, and I scream for more than a decade now how this is insanity. We have plenty of resources to provide for all, for free. It is an unfortunate situation but I am acutely aware of it and trying to showcase ways of doing it better via our TROM project.

Jesus dude that's not how it works in the FOSS world, given that their "free" plan is truly free given that all of their code is publicly available and can be self hosted. If you start with bitwarden on this, you'll have to move to every other FOSS project who offer paid services, especially Redhat.

their "free" plan is truly free

It is not free, it is limited in features specifically as a marketing strategy called freemium.

Freemium, a portmanteau of the words "free" and "premium," is a pricing strategy by which a basic product or service is provided free of charge, but money (a premium) is charged for additional features, services, or virtual (online) or physical (offline) goods that expand the functionality of the free version of the software.[1][2] This business model has been used in the software industry since the 1980s.

You might be fooled by the wording there, but that's actually the point of this strategy. Works with some people.

all of their code is publicly available and can be self hosted

Yes this is great, and it is different form the services that they provide. For those, they charge.

If you start with bitwarden on this, you'll have to move to every other FOSS project who offer paid services, especially Redhat.

And that's what I've been doing for years. We have a custom Linux distro for example and hundreds of apps in our library, and we check to see if they are truly free (trade-free) or not https://www.tromjaro.com/apps/ - we have a Trade-Free directly too where we vet these goods/services for how "free" they are.

also literally any FOSS advocate or even general users who stumble upon such a service as that of Bitwarden easily can understand the business model without being duped into doing anything. Its quite a straightforward model.

Unfortunately many do not understand that these services are not free. That's why I am trying to shed some light here.

as I said, if you wanna start with bitwarden, go ahead and do it with every other company on this semantics journey of yours. Everyone who studies these free models even in the slightest is able to differentiate between freemium and free projects. And making bitwarden look like a freemium service, first of all, is a huge disservice to its FOSS project too.

Not semantics, but based on what they actually do. You can't sell half-full bottles of drinks and call them full.

And making bitwarden look like a freemium service, first of all, is a huge disservice to its FOSS project too.

It is not me doing that, they provide a service that fits perfectly fine in what we describe today as freemium.

So is Bitwarden having a freemium strategy in your view?

They call a limited and thus freemium version of their service, as "free". I suspect it is intentional and it is a wide-practiced marketing strategy. It is usually done to lure in customers to eventually buy the premium packages. Bitwarden is a business, so all fits together well.

literally no one is calling the half bottle of coke a full one here. Everyone knows the difference between the business side of Bitwarden and the project side, goddamnit dude.

so what is element doing? With its paid services for bridges and support?

Element is selling a service not the software and features for software. You could call that as freemium too, but the point is that they do not touch the software. And thus, the software itself is entirely free. Their marketing strategy for their business can be called freemium, same is the case for Bitwarden.

try running bridges on the main element software.

Give me more info? What do you mean?

Ok, I'd like to see that being said by them.

But nowhere they are misleading anyone about it.

We should not use the baby brain for these. We know, of course, that this freemium business model is meant to lure in customers, deceive at times, and so forth. That's why many companies they provide "free" access, to get you to buy the "premium" ones.

Freemium is yet another ugly side of our trade-system, where humans have to find ways to attract buyers...it is unfortunate.

But I think if you are honest your persistence on this thread mostly stems from your advocacy of the concept of "trade-free" versus other uses of "free" that do not match it. As an activist spreading the msg.

My engagement and "passion" on this thread comes from years and years of seeing so many companies promising this or that, and then they are caught up in lies and deceiving tactics. And I've see them abusing the concept of free and privacy too many times. I do not want that to happen. So I react to that.

Bitwarden may be a bit of a nitpicking case, but I started by suggesting to @FediFollows that the way they wrote the post is confusing, to me and am sure to others. And to understand the misconceptions and abuse of the concept of "free" that I think Bitwarden is at least a little bit guilty of.

I am someone who tests thousands of Open Source apps for our TROMjaro distro, and I am tired of seeing so many "marketing" strategies hidden in a sneaky way, behind many apps. At times you don't realize that you are using a freemium version of an app up until later on, and it is truly bothering. Once I have edited this big book in a PDF editor that was "free and open source" and I had installed it via the software manager, and when I wanted to save the PDF it injected a watermark on all pages asking me to pay to have that removed. I've seen this happen countless of times.

In any case, I appreciate this comment:

Look, I really appreciate the passion and perseverance with which you advocate different, better ways to move forward.

Being extremely passionate about something is a double edge sword, on one hand you will be very vocal and active and this is very important, on the other hand you can be biased. I try not to be biased, and if I am I hope others will expose that.

And if it is abused it is not inherent to the model, but to the flaws of the people behind it.

We spent a lot of time at TROM trying to showcase how the environment is ultimately what makes humans be like this or like that. It is a fact, and it is important to embrace it. Else we end up blaming people and never changing the environment, and thus the same environment will create the same kind of people.

In other words, if you live in an environment that is competitive, you'll be competitive, and perhaps egocentric, and greedy.

In any case, I always try to never blame people, but to look at how the env is shaping their behavior. The people behind Bitwarden should understand that I do not blame them in any way.

What made you change your mind? I am curious

actually you know what, after all these months, I take back all my arguments. I quite agree with your concern with the terminologies used by corporations in their marketing.