[ncallaway]

> "what problem does this actually solve?"

This solves a customer's problem.

> "Phones exist as they are as a sealed unit, so if something fails or you want something new, you buy it from the manufacturer or network."

This is the problem that it solves. It's obviously a great feature from the manufacturer's point of view.

> "Networks or manufacturers wouldn't want this kind of thing because it would affect their profits, so what's in it for them? What solution is it offering them?"

This attitude makes them prime candidates to be disrupted. If someone can provide a better experience for the customer that solves the same problem that you solve, then you're at risk of being eliminated.

> "That's before we even get into the engineering flaws..."

This is my biggest concern with this project. Still, good on them for trying. A lot of disruptive technology comes from technologies written off as too-difficult or too-complex to make work.

[jpswade]

The customer's problem isn't the network/manufacturers problem, hence why Apple were so successful with iPhone.

If the network/manufacturer can't make money, that's not a viable solution for anyone.

This does not solve a problem, it creates them.

[ncallaway]

I agree that this would certainly create problems for the network and the manufacturers. If it better solves a customer problem, and you are able to overcome the problems it creates for the people creating the device, they will suddenly have a significant competitive advantage over the manufacturers that didn't consider better ways to solve the customer's problem.

As a network and/or a manufacturer (or any industry leader), I would be watching potentially disruptive technologies very closely to make sure something didn't blindside me and knock me off my post.

Finally, as I said before, I think this will generally be technically nonviable for many of the technical concerns mentioned by other commentators. There are good reasons that the components in most devices are very tightly coupled.