I’m fairly confident that each of your complaints has been addressed by at least someone in this forum, which means at least someone in this forum has examined what you have to say and formed a retort, which makes the crux of your argument a stacking-the-deck fallacy.
Unless, of course, one of two other things happened: A) those arguments were logically unsound, which you don’t mention here, or B) you simply ignored them because they didn’t agree with you, which would be more stacking the deck. Innocent until proven guilty, so let’s explore A.
WIthin the bounds of this thread, you’ve made two on-topic statements, one based on conjecture and the second a rant, twice replied to something off-topic, and twice engaged with someone who already agreed with you. Let’s only consider the two on-topic statements you’ve made.
The first was a conjecture-filled opinion comparing two companies with very different goals producing similar end-items. Pinephones are marketed as “hacker toys” and L5s are marketed as “Android and iPhone replacements.” Pine doesn’t write the software for its phones, Purism does; but, you’re more focues on hardware, so let us focus on that. Pine went with what worked, what was hackable/replaceable, and what was cheap. Purism, of its own volition, went with what worked, what was hackable/replaceable, and what could be configured such that they could achieve RYF certification. The latter constraint put quite a lot of restriction on hardware and even necessitated some custom manufacturing.
But perhaps you’ll turn a blind eye to that.
Additionally, saying “Pinephone can make a lot of cheap phones, why can’t Purism?” is like saying “Toyota can make a lot of cheap cars, why can’t Ferrari?” They can, but that isn’t what their goal is.
But perhaps you’ll turn a blind eye to that.
Your second on-topic post mentioned deceptive marketing and/or advertising and lies. “Lies,” I assume, refers to the refund policy. I will agree, as pretty much everyone here already has, that Purism should not have changed the refund policy without giving people a heads-up and probably an opportunity to get their money back at that time instead of just silency chaning the policy. We’ve all read about it, and most of us has spoken about it. Eyes looking at that topic have not been blind, and there’s evidence in multiple threads. Most of us have forgiven them. You are within your rights to not, but blaming, faulting, or getting angry at any of the rest of us for anything that has to do with the refund policy is an ad hominem fallacy. “Deceptive marketing,” I assume, refers to shipping scheduling and reports. Purism has never missed a scheduled date without explanation, even if that means a batch started shipping at the end of a window. It still counts, it would hold up in court, they did what they said they would. One’s understanding of how large a batch is going to be or the volume of units moved or any other details presumed by one that turned out to not be accurate is nothing more than a misinterpretation. Or maybe I missed something? I don’t read the blogs like I used to. Correct me if I’m wrong, but don’t take this as another opportunity to cherry-pick. We won’t take you seriously otherwise.
I didn’t know Purism was horribly managed, when did you work for them? Or should we trust the words of ex-employees without evidence?
The point is, you have provided no reason for any of us to believe you, at least not here, and I’m not cross-posting. Message me if you like and then I can come back here and tell everyone how right you have been all along (provided you can prove it to me), otherwise your angry words will remain exactly that.
It would be nice to actually get to the bottom of all this, though. A discussion that isn’t a crusade would be most welcome.
