I find this move concerning, and wish that the Founder had looked for a new CEO that shared his values rather than a Private Equity and Mergers Expert.
Furthermore, the change to the GRIT motto is worrying. Trust is useless without Transparency when it comes to code and security.
It’s not as bad as the headline seems. Transparency is still in the motto. The actual change is:
But still. Why change it at all? Why replace “inclusion” with “innovation”?
It smells like Tech Bro.
There’s just no way to spin that positively, even giving them the benefit of the doubt, especially since they aren’t rolling it back. Someone spent effort to make that values change, so its not an accident nor a “nothingburger”.
It’s the change from “users” and “community members” to “customers” for me.
I don’t need my password manager to innovate anything. I would very much like it to include support for all of my tools and machines though.
Removing ‘inclusion’ smells like a pivot to the right, same way DEI is a target for maga
Ty. So many comments here didn’t see your post and others did but didn’t read it. My take is innovation is a greater priority, and trust protocols. I’ll watch but I’ll wait for it to be a something burger.
Well, trust is literally the oposite of transparency. So i would call it quite bad, especially if you consider that right now i trust these guys with my credit card details, my taxID, all my passwords.
Exactly. In cybersec, trust is someting you try to avoid or at least minimize. Trying to use it as a selling point is ridiculous.
Or it’s something you earn through transparency.
That’s what they are trying to communicate here, yes. But 8.5 million users didn’t need to be told they need to trust the platform, they chose to. As did I with a premium plan to cover MFA and attachments.
Now with business types in charge and a hidden doubling of the fees, that’s more than halfway out the window no matter what the website stands for. I’m guessing somebody decided it’s time to cash in on the goodwill they built over the past decade.
That’s a great point.
I don’t want to trust them either. I don’t want to have to.
The only “devil’s advocate” argument I can think of is they’re trying to appeal to enterprise clients (who would not know that and want to “trust” a security company). That would explain the “I” change: “inclusion” (sadly) sounds political, “innovation” is like corporate catnip. Bitwarden could be trying to attract big fish to fund development, having their cake an eating it.
Because the “inclusive” part is already described by the first letter’s “story”?