This is a company making a fork of open source code and including a backdoor in it. These aren't Google Android devices. How exactly do you prevent someone doing the same with any of your projects? You don't, and as usual you're misleading people with your dishonest approach.
Conversation
The headline and article on Ars is a little bit misleading but that's not what I was talking about. I'm talking about Purism repeatedly attacking iOS and Android by being misleading and even outright dishonest, especially when what they're offering is much worse at these things.
2
1
An iPhone is an all around better choice and will remain that way, and they seem totally uninterested in actually doing the work to make a product offering more privacy and security rather than just marketing it as such and misleading people. It's incredibly harmful to users.
1
1
It's increasingly clear that it's about branding and marketing, not substance. What they care about is bringing Debian, systemd, GNOME, etc. to mobile not privacy and security. In reality, they'll be delivering a device with substantially worse hardware and OS privacy / security.
1
I don't want a response from them. I'd just prefer it if they stopped posting so many attacks and corrected the huge amount of misleading and inaccurate information they've published. They should try to compete something like an iPhone on merit instead of innuendo / dishonesty.
1
I've complained about it multiple times before, and nothing ever came of it. If companies and individuals want to be trusted, I think they should start by being consistently honest and representing their own products and competing products fairly and accurately. Just my opinion.
1
For example, look through what I've said about the iPhone and iOS, and what I've said when people ask for a recommendation on which phone to purchase. I've consistently said a current generation iPhone is the best choice for most people and that I'm working toward better options.
1
1
You won't find any comment even during the time that a product was being sold based on my work where I was unfair towards it or claimed that the alternative to it offered all around better privacy and security. I was always fair about what was better, and what needed improvement.
It's not a specific complaint about this thread. I'm not even particularly annoyed with this specific case of it. When I made comments pointing out many issues like isolation of component not being based on whether it's on the same die, I wanted corrections, which never happened.
1
And, as I said, it's solely a problem with the approach to marketing and talking about their own product and other products. It's not a problem with what they're doing but how they're portraying it, which is consistent inaccurate and misleading without corrections ever made.
1