[grizzles]

They are likely to fail because they are under capitalized for what they are trying to do.

The manufacturing processes to produce a decent phone are fiendishly complex. The cost of equipment to do basic quality assurance of the hardware stretch into the millions of dollars.

If (and it's a HUGE if) they are able to ship, it's because they will have put all their trust into their manufacturer, and the manufacturer that built the product for them delivered.

> One of the big tasks of our software and design teams, working with our partners (GNOME, KDE, Matrix, Nextcloud, and Monero), will be to create a proper User Interface (UI) and User Experience (UX) for a phone screen.

No it's not. They should lay off all those people and spend all the money on QA / testing hw iterations. The strategy should be to try to spend the $2M as miserly as possible, until they have something that looks like a phone and passes a crapload of software QA tests. For what they have and because their prospects of raising vc cash are dim, burning 150K/month on ui & framework building is not a good strategy.

[O_H_E]

Thoughtful quality insight, hope it turns out wrong :)

[grizzles]

I hope so too for their backers sake. There is another dimension to this too that I thought of after my last post.

Their potential partners can be grouped into two categories. Companies that have produced phones before and companies that haven't but may claim related expertise. The former group are competitors to Purism and have a strong economic incentive to stop the commodification of the phone platform, esp for a relatively small payday. For the latter group, they would be essentially funding another company's R&D process. Imo it would be a fatal mistake to choose a fabricator that hasn't produced a phone before. It's so crazy that the latter idea should be dismissed entirely.