Jorge, I hope you bought your computer and cell phone at the computer and cell phone factories respectively. Because everybody knows that people have sensitive personal and credit card data + some have bitcoin wallets on their devices so it's important to buy from the factory instead of a vendor and even then you are not 100% sure!

  Why you want Trezor to put warnings on their product and educate customers, when no one in the business does that?

  You mentioned fake ATMs. If anybody planted those or if I opened a fake bank branch then people would loose money, but I don't see banks warning their customers about their product not being safe.

  If postal offices started replacing every package that could potentialy bring them profit, they would have millions on the first day, but magically they don't do it (because the poor postman would go to jail). And somehow they don't have to warn anybody that their package might contain replaced malicious product.

  If every hardware manufacturer would have to check and physicaly secure all their vendors to be sure they are not putting malicious elements in their hardware, there will be no hardware at all and yet I don't see warnings on my laptop about some parts being potentialy malicious.

  My point is not that Trezor is 100% secure, but that the problems that you mention are not Trezor specific and at the same time you want only SL to warn their customers about such problems. Just because you hate bitcoin you have double standard for Bitcoin and non-Bitcoin products. When you convince mobile and computer vendors to label their products with such warning then come back with such requests.

I quote the site: "The difference lies in the fact that Trezor is not built upon a secured microcontroller, leading to possible security holes such as side channel attacks, private keys leaks through code exploits and physical key extraction as soon as it is stolen."

The fact is that the Trezor is really not built on a secured microcontroller, however:
 - the possibility of security holes does not mean that there are some
 - and more importantly the use of secured microcontroller does not guarantee the absence of security holes

1. There is no known side channel attack on Trezor and even if there was one, it would probably require user to sign A LOT of transactions chosen by attacker which is not feasible attack vector.
2. It would be extremely difficult/impossible to exploit Trezor.
3. Physical extraction of password unprotected keys is possible (and this is known from the beginning) but it would be very expensive and it would require professional laboratory equipment and a lot of time. User would be able to move his funds using backup.

On the other hand Ledger Wallet requires secure computer to initialize and is less user friendly. I would recommend it to someone who needs product cheaper than Trezor, but I would not say that it's more secure.

Yeah, Try USB cable that you know works.

Nope, check the thread history for details.

The core should stay independent. It would be contra-productive for them to support one particular wallet product over another.
And I don't see a benefit for Trezor either. It already works fine without core support.
Maybe a tighter integration of some of the Trezor BIPs into the core is what you want, but I guess that core developers have their own priorities (including but not limited to payment protocol and making the client more robust)

Well, nice website and professional video promising a product that should ship mid 2015 with every feature possible. I wish them all the best, but I would be very cautious about spending money on this.

I have no information whether Satoshilabs filed such a bug report or not. To be fair, the issue might still be in mytrezor not using the backend correctly. Satoshilabs may have some more info and it would be nice to get this fixed instead of just restarting backends.

This is a great idea. Second server should fix the problem for most users because they could try the other one in case of first failing.

They should also have an automated service that detects the ptoblem and restarts the server. Or it could send SMS to stick.
Or maybe, if server always works for couple of days, they may have automated daily restarts.

Any eta on when BoP is going to be fixed?

Let's say you have a three company owners. One is in Japan, Second in the US and third in Zurich. You may need two of them to sign company expenses. That's what multi sig is about.
Second use case: You have to sign transaction with 3 out of five: your Trezor, your wife's Trezor, your mobile phone, Trezor in the bank vault and your geek cousin computer wallet.

The server was not fixed. It was restarted. This will happen again soon. I look forward to Electrum release so I have a backup solution when this happens next time.

Either the bootloader binary can be retrieved using custom firmware or it can't. In the first case, it's simple for competition to get all they need. In the latter case, the bootloader cannot be verified.

In the first case it makes no sense to hide the code, in the second case it won't help much to release it.

Can you please clarify if it can be read?

Buy plastic one and pay somebody to do the case for you. slush mentioned it's mostly manual work anyway and plastic is almost for free...

But I know you guys are not iOS/Android developers. Hiring someone is of course an option and I would not mind, because that would not harm other goals. But even if iOS was top on the wishlist, you should not do it, but focus on what you are good at...

Well, on my wishlist of Trezor improvements, this is now on 15th place right after being able to login to my battle.net account with Trezor. I believe there are more important things to do/fix for Trezor developers. This should be a community effort.  All the libs are out there. I don't really see the reason why Trezor team should implement this.

The wallets that talk to Trezor are myTrezor and Electrum, and I think that Armory is planned.

If your Trezor breaks, the seed can be imported into Wallet32 and Mycelium 2.0 (RC1 is out).

Chrome does not support NPAPI plugins. This will be resolved with Trezor bridge, when it is released. Trezor plugin does not work in Chrome.

In hardware, the more pieces of one color you order the lower is the price. They stock three colors to avoid having to pay high premiums on small batches of Trezors. If you want to buy 1000 or more yellow Trezors, just send them an e-mail and I bet they will order them for you.

There will be red, neon green, Lambo yellow, gun metal, black metal and plain yellow for all of you when(if) these sell in bigger numbers. Until then, you have to make it yourself: http://imgur.com/a/GbsAn

million of button presses + high durability against dust and electricity discharge. not waterproof.

Isn't this the USB cable problem again? Can you try different USB cable?

You can use the same, because BIP32 paths would differ. BIP44 specifies these paths like this:
m / purpose' / coin_type' / account' / change / address_index
Registered coin types: http://doc.satoshilabs.com/slips/slip-0044.html

First LTC address would have path: m / 44' / 2' / 0' / 0 / 0 compared to BTC path: m / 44' / 0' / 0' / 0 / 0 and maybe in the future you may have Doge: m / 44' / doge_constant' / 0' / 0 / 0 or others