Hacker News Reader

Comment by AnonHP | Hacker News Reader

Bitwarden pivoted to serving enterprise needs (like SSO, collaboration) a few years ago and hasn’t given much attention to improving the basic product itself (there still aren’t additional types, like licenses, WiFi passwords, etc.). You can file this as an issue and wait.

View on HN

Just like every other product initially launched for consumers, eventually pivoting to enterprises and forgetting about the little guy.

Seems it's impossible for people to run companies for the average consumer. Are their cash-flow really so bad they can't help themselves going into the enterprise market or is there something else going on?

Enterprises are vastly more willing to pay to have their problems solved than consumers. (I say this as I see the difference in behavior in my own two personas.)

Enterprises don’t blink at paying $50K/yr for something to improve security and save staff thousands of hours of time. Consumers are used to things being (or appearing to be) free. On a per-user basis, I’d expect consumers to ask more questions of support, while paying much less.

Without meaning to disparage the OP, enterprises don’t put you on HN when their feature isn’t supported. They pay enough to focus the mind on important features.

Enterprises are an 80/20 play. Keep your top clients happy and you’ll be fine. The first time you get a large order you realise that’s where your focus should be.

bitwarden allows you to add custom fields and secure notes for anything that falls outside the usual email/password data.

I'm wondering why their enterprise clients are ok with this though. I would have thought they'd get more pressure from them since most businesses would not want to lose all their attachments if there's a problem.

Or maybe businesses forbid attachments in the first place or maybe they haven't realized and are okay with what being now locked in the service.

Isn't the bitwarden client opensource enough or the implementation free that someone could come in and modify the export functionality or add the functionality to the API ?

Probably enterprises don't want export feature by user.

Organization export is separate from the user export and it's only available to administrators.

I just checked - it's using the same code and is missing attachments too.

Perhaps attachments isn't an enterprise priority over things like SSO support and other features that have seen changes and additions?

I only noticed attachments exist after this post. They are pretty hidden away and there are other ways to store SSH keys that do get included in the export.

As an Enterprise Client, I did not even know there was attachments, and i dont know what I would use attachments for...

Splunk licenses (and likely a ton of other enterprise-y software) are actual files, so when we renew our license, it goes into 1P as an attachment on our Splunk item

I recognize that's not what you would use attachments for, but I'm offering that there are enterprises that get benefit from attachments, not just individual users

We have Software Asset management tools that manage those assests, This also tracks renewal dates, and various other aspects of Software management that makes password managers not a good fit.

Our password manager is just a password manager, I suspect many other organizations are the same.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com