Despite Google's intentions for its default image viewing and editing app for Android, the Photos app has, over the years, become one of the most popular
Has that killed Bitwarden yet? There are many self-hosted projects that also have paid options.
I’d be happy with a paid (one-time fee) license for a self-hosted option with any software. Subscriptions should only be paying for data/storage, and if that’s offloaded to the customer’s local hardware, there’s no need to keep them on a subscription.
Especially for a product that’s privacy-first, that really should include a self-hosted option (paid or otherwise).
You implied that it would hurt business, and that really doesn’t seem to be the case for other projects using a self-hosted/subscription business model.
If you meant something else, then I guess I misunderstood. No harm, no foul.
Has that killed Bitwarden yet? There are many self-hosted projects that also have paid options.
I’d be happy with a paid (one-time fee) license for a self-hosted option with any software. Subscriptions should only be paying for data/storage, and if that’s offloaded to the customer’s local hardware, there’s no need to keep them on a subscription.
Especially for a product that’s privacy-first, that really should include a self-hosted option (paid or otherwise).
I didn’t say anything about “killing”.
You implied that it would hurt business, and that really doesn’t seem to be the case for other projects using a self-hosted/subscription business model.
If you meant something else, then I guess I misunderstood. No harm, no foul.
Hurting /= killing
Fair enough. I still don’t think that being open about their self-hosted option would hurt them.
Maybe not. That’s my best guess as to why they wouldn’t advertise it on the homepage.