Welp, time to move on.

agreed. gpl was the reason I used it and making it less convenient to obtain and update is a no go for me. might have to just migrate everything to keepass but online ones are nice for crap accounts.

has the frog boiling started? this might not be a big deal on linux/windows but for iOS it might be the beginning of the end?

Not a great sign. I really don't want to have to migrate my password management if BitWarden enshittifies

I completely understand and won't try to talk you out of it, because I'd wager we have non-differing views on the topic. I was an early adopter, and I hold a healthy respect for AI. My company emphasizes augment, not replace.

To the tool itself: option A is a plain script, no model involved at any point, readable top to bottom. If it gets built you can use it or ignore it, but nothing in it needs your trust in AI.

I see zero ethical use of ai.

Fair, and thanks for saying it plainly. Which part bothers you, the tool being written with AI help, or AI anywhere near the vault? The second never happens. No model sees an export in either route. Route B does use AI twice: one builds the script on your machine, and a second, different one reviews the code before you run it. Only the code is shown to it. Route A has none of that. It's a plain script you can read top to bottom.

Thanks for weighing in. Agreed on both counts. Option A is exactly that: one readable script, runs offline, no dependencies. Option B is for people who won't run anyone else's code against their vault, even if they can read it. Same tests, same offline checker, but the code comes out of their own machine. Both routes get the test-before-vault step.

I don't have this problem myself, but if I was to use a tool like that, it'd need to be a readable script that can run offline. Not sure what problem B is solving (readability for non-programmers?), but I like the idea of having it run tests before running it on the actual vault.

If it involves ai, absolutely not.

I don't have anything against the Bitwarden app. As said the mobile app is not the subject of this thread.

About my preference toward the extension : I tend to limit the perimeter of the tools I use to the environment in which they are applicable. My browser is the only space where I have to fill passwords on my phone, so I prefer having a service within my browser with a limited scope.

I've also noticed some issues with the extension but they don't bother me in my daily use, and wouldn't justify an entire removal with no com' imo.

What do you have against the Bitwarden app? I've found the app works with most android browsers, including ironfox, and other android apps as well. I've also found the android browser extensions for bitwarden don't work reliably.

Granted. :)

But a 100% price increase without notice or justification will burn good will. It isn’t about the ten bucks. It’s about the lack of communication. What negative surprises are they hiding to spring on us next year?

there's no price if you host it yourself ;)

It would’ve been nice to have advance notice of the price increase

As far as I understand, they already are sharing it:

The database is currently hosted on GitHub and only Bitwarden engineers are capable of adding entries. Your extension’s copy of the database is stored locally and your extension sends no data to Bitwarden or GitHub on usage.

Link to repo: https://github.com/bitwarden/map-the-web/

Interesting.

It makes sense to crowd source this type of thing, but I wonder if BW will do the right thing and share the database?

Ooooohhh now I get it. That is why the are increasing the price... (—_—)

Not sure it was necessary but okay. So long as I'm not forced to work to find things that I already knew how to find...

A resounding "we don't hate it" consensus has emerged. This is a rousing success in the modern era.

I don't like new designs, but this actially looks fine

It’s fine I guess.

Did you try looking settings -> autofill?

It has been a while since I used android, so I cannot say specifically that it is there. On iOS I have to go in there and enable it, as it is disabled by default.

I'm not sure, but I think no.

Why not just use SyncThing for syncing? It works well and is painless to set up.