Let's see what else they can tell us about them next week; fortunately you can cancel the preorders at any time..
I see many people commenting how they like the new design and I guess it's always going to be something like that when someone is creating redesigned device.
On one hand, sure, but how about just offering some colour choices to choose from? Shouldn't be too much more expensive. Anyhow, I decided to keep the preorder since I ended up liking and continuing to use the v1 to this day. The timeline was pushed back a few times; hopefully it arrives soon.
Best thing would be to have smaller group of testers who would provide feedback before main release, that way most of the issues would be avoided.
I think that crypto crowdsourced projects are totally different from normal tech industry, but on positive side look what ledger did with many millions they collected, they created worst X crap ever.
Let's wait few more days to see more information and better image previews.
Yes, being able to give early product feedback would be great; renders would completely suffice for figuring out elements like form factor, colours and overall design - no need to send out prototypes (which are admittedly extremely expensive to make one-offs of).
Thx @n0nce for a competent review and picking on important issues. That's transparancy I enjoy.
The first version of the wallet has properties that are almost a no-go for me. Inferior power supply design. (While I like the ability to use AAA or better AA size batteries, the power circuit should've indeed been better designed to get more high enough voltage out of more normal batteries of rechargeable ones.)
You're welcome. I actually have a little update on the 'battery situation'. After having bought a huge pack of Alkaline batteries (40 or so), I've only used 2 of them so far and switched to number 3 & 4 a while ago. If you just turn it on, verify an address and turn it back off, it (understandably - but still) uses very very little energy and you can use it regularly without swapping batteries much. It also doesn't drain them at all if you leave them in when powered down (I had the suspicion there was a little power draw while turned off but I was wrong).
So it's not as bad as it first seemed, but it's still clear they messed up the circuitry; Foundation honestly admitted themselves they found this problem too late & had to 'quick fix' it by telling people to buy expensive Lithium batteries. I expect this to be much better on v2, let's see if the device meets expectations.
Regarding "batch 2":
I kinda like the design more than the first one, to be honest. But design has less priority for me. It has to be easy to use for the tasks that it's made for.
I have no idea how long those Li-ion rechargeable batteries will be available and how long one lasts, even if it is a very common type. For a device intended to be kept for years such rechargeables are kind of "planned" obsolescense, a point of failure which I'm not happy with.
I guess design is just very subjective, but like you, I can disregard it if it's technologically a good device. The battery model that they seem to be using is one that I've seen around for at least 10 years, maybe even heading towards 20.
1200 mAh Lithium ion battery in Nokia BL-5C form factor (included with purchase).
Indeed, this battery form factor has been around for at least 19 years this year. I expect it to continue being made; even if it stops, there seems to be a ton of rolling stock from which you can buy a few and they'll last a bunch of years for sure.
Over 250 million 1100s have been sold since its launch in late 2003
[...]
Battery: Nokia BL-5C
The manifacturer could mitigate this if it were possible to use the device connected to a cabled power source like the charger but without necessity of a rechargeable battery inside the wallet. Is this possible? This way you could still use the device if the battery isn't available anymore or you happen to have none which is still OK.
I don't know about this, as I haven't gotten my preordered unit yet.
There is one thing that I don't understand and what is for me nearly a no-go for this nice hardware wallet: what is the purpose of a non-resettable device PIN once it has been defined for the first time? Does this also apply for the batch 2 variant? What is the security idea behind such a device design decission? I don't get it.
From a hardware wallet I expect it to be fully factory resettable, including any user defined device PIN to unlock it.
This is explained in their user manual:
To change Passport's PIN, first enter your old PIN and then confirm the new PIN twice.
Passport will display new security words when entering your new PIN.
For security reasons, you cannot erase the PIN and bring Passport to a factory-fresh state – you can only change the PIN.
There are a few potential attacks if it were possible to remove the PIN, one of the most trivial to understand being the supply chain attack. Someone could resell a used unit as new by resetting the device and resealing everything. They could buy the device, flash a modified (insecure) firmware, remove the PIN and sell it to a victim. As far as I know, you need to set it up once (thus also seting a PIN) to flash a custom firmware.
I don't know if v2 will be exactly the same, but I've asked them once and if I recall correctly, they're aiming to keep the codebase of v1 and v2 similar / mostly the same. As their naming suggests, as a 'batch 2' device, it should be fairly similar to v1 software-wise, with mostly hardware changes.
