Foundation Passport (FE) hardware wallet review and walkthrough

[n0nce]

While we are waiting for n0nce to receive his new batch2 Passport wallet, I found some comparison images between old and new Passport devices.
We can see that new device is taller, thinner and it has much better screen, but I think that major improvement was made inside with new battery design.
All owners of Passport Founder’s Edition can apply for beta testing of their new Envoy app.

   

Looking good to me! I like how from the side and back it keeps the same black-gold-white 'sandwich' design aesthetic. Being a little larger is also welcome, since v1 is really really small. With the reduced thickness it may be possible to put in a small purse, pocket or similar without it sticking out. That's something I will test out in the real world when I get it.
Still not a fan of the golden buttons on the front; I consider taking them out and spray-painting them.. 

Color display wasn't really needed for me and the UI looks more cluttered; but I'm by far most curious to see what battery life it will have. It's a little funny 'anecdote' that the v1's batteries are actually almost empty when they took that picture. Really the biggest issue with v1.

I'm going to check out how to get that Envoy Beta; while the wallet works just fine with existing, 'tried and tested' software, I'm excited when a manufacturer puts in the time to create their own optional software with their own touch. The way I experienced Foundation Devices as a company so far, their code may be more trustable than e.g. very popular mobile wallet BlueWallet. I had a look at their application and the code a while back and noticed that you can get push notifications, which have to be issued by their server and then run through Google / Apple servers subsequently. Even if you set your own Electrum server (so the public keys / xpubs aren't sent to the company's server), notifications are still handled by their infrastructure. I contacted them about it, let's see if anything will change.

[1714049888]

1714049888

[1714049888]

1714049888

[1714049888]

1714049888

[1714049888]

1714049888

[1714049888]

1714049888

[m2017]

~snip

Looking good to me! I like how from the side and back it keeps the same black-gold-white 'sandwich' design aesthetic. Being a little larger is also welcome, since v1 is really really small. With the reduced thickness it may be possible to put in a small purse, pocket or similar without it sticking out. That's something I will test out in the real world when I get it.
Still not a fan of the golden buttons on the front; I consider taking them out and spray-painting them.. 

If you are patient, then you can wait for the gold paint to rub off and come off on its own. Then you don't have to spray-paint.
 

Color display wasn't really needed for me and the UI looks more cluttered; but I'm by far most curious to see what battery life it will have. It's a little funny 'anecdote' that the v1's batteries are actually almost empty when they took that picture. Really the biggest issue with v1.

It seems to me that a monochrome display would be quite enough. Does v.1 have a backlight? And is there a difference in battery life in v.1 and v.2? Does the color display consume more power?

I would also like to know how long it takes to turn passport on and off, if anyone has tested this? How fast does it happen? It makes no sense to keep the device constantly on, which means that most of the time it will be turned off and will be used only when necessary. I was always annoyed in some models of phones for a long turn on.

[DireWolfM14]

Looking good to me! I like how from the side and back it keeps the same black-gold-white 'sandwich' design aesthetic. Being a little larger is also welcome, since v1 is really really small. With the reduced thickness it may be possible to put in a small purse, pocket or similar without it sticking out. That's something I will test out in the real world when I get it.

I like that it's slightly wider and taller, and even though it's not much thinner it makes the thickness more proportional over all.  The form factor makes it look like a small, cheap phone, which camouflages it from the uninitiated.  That's a good thing.

Still not a fan of the golden buttons on the front; I consider taking them out and spray-painting them.. 

Not to stereotype my own race, but it looks like they have Arabs running their aesthetic design team.  

Color display wasn't really needed for me and the UI looks more cluttered; but I'm by far most curious to see what battery life it will have. It's a little funny 'anecdote' that the v1's batteries are actually almost empty when they took that picture. Really the biggest issue with v1.

The display looks much brighter in the photos, but I wonder how much of that is due to the battery level on V1.  Anyway, my aging eyes are likely to appreciate the colors, sometimes it's easier to see contrasting colors other than black and white.

Anyway, I'm patiently waiting for your review...   And a Black Friday sale.  

[n0nce]

~snip

Looking good to me! I like how from the side and back it keeps the same black-gold-white 'sandwich' design aesthetic. Being a little larger is also welcome, since v1 is really really small. With the reduced thickness it may be possible to put in a small purse, pocket or similar without it sticking out. That's something I will test out in the real world when I get it.
Still not a fan of the golden buttons on the front; I consider taking them out and spray-painting them.. 

If you are patient, then you can wait for the gold paint to rub off and come off on its own. Then you don't have to spray-paint.

Actually, yes; removing the paint is better than adding on top. Polish may do the trick. I hope these devices are easy to disassemble.. Fortunately, we will get open-source drawings which should help determining how to open it up without damage!
 

Color display wasn't really needed for me and the UI looks more cluttered; but I'm by far most curious to see what battery life it will have. It's a little funny 'anecdote' that the v1's batteries are actually almost empty when they took that picture. Really the biggest issue with v1.

It seems to me that a monochrome display would be quite enough. Does v.1 have a backlight? And is there a difference in battery life in v.1 and v.2? Does the color display consume more power?

Yes, v1 has sufficient backlight (not in the bright sun, though). Version 2 has a totally new battery concept. Lithium-ion rechargeable battery instead of single-use Lithium AA. It's supposed to last longer and even if it won't, you can always just recharge, right. But nobody wants to sit around a pile of (fresh and used - since they need to be recycled) double-A's. As long as you stick to (very expensive) Lithium AA's, they will hold for a couple hours, too, but they're expensive and not as available to buy locally. Using Alkalines will result in the aforementioned pile.

I would also like to know how long it takes to turn passport on and off, if anyone has tested this? How fast does it happen? It makes no sense to keep the device constantly on, which means that most of the time it will be turned off and will be used only when necessary. I was always annoyed in some models of phones for a long turn on.

Just tested:
Boot: 7 seconds to PIN screen, 6 seconds after that.
Shutdown: under 1 second (basically instant).

You're right: you won't run this for long periods of time. When I use it to sign a transaction, the time from turning it on to turning it back off is often under 1 minute including PIN entry and address verification. Large screen and nice handling (e.g. no cable sticking out, sits in hand well) makes it very easy and comfortable to do so quickly.

Looking good to me! I like how from the side and back it keeps the same black-gold-white 'sandwich' design aesthetic. Being a little larger is also welcome, since v1 is really really small. With the reduced thickness it may be possible to put in a small purse, pocket or similar without it sticking out. That's something I will test out in the real world when I get it.

I like that it's slightly wider and taller, and even though it's not much thinner it makes the thickness more proportional over all.  The form factor makes it look like a small, cheap phone, which camouflages it from the uninitiated.  That's a good thing.

True; making it look less conspicuous would also be one of the reasons for me to remove the gold paint on the front buttons. I also expected v1 to be a lot larger than it really is, which means it quickly reveals that it's not a phone (too small), so larger size will be appreciated for 'rough opsec', as well.

Color display wasn't really needed for me and the UI looks more cluttered; but I'm by far most curious to see what battery life it will have. It's a little funny 'anecdote' that the v1's batteries are actually almost empty when they took that picture. Really the biggest issue with v1.

The display looks much brighter in the photos, but I wonder how much of that is due to the battery level on V1.  Anyway, my aging eyes are likely to appreciate the colors, sometimes it's easier to see contrasting colors other than black and white.

It's important to note that the display brightness on v1 doesn't fade with dying battery. It stays on whatever you set it to, until the battery runs dry. It's possible that in the picture it wasn't set to max. brightness, but honestly the screen is not super bright, so I'm fairly confident v2 will be brighter. To be pedantic; colors actually have less contrast than pure black and white. But I need to see both side-by-side in person to really evaluate any screen improvements.

[SFR10]

I found some comparison images between old and new Passport devices.
~Snipped~
https://i.imgur.com/nRzUJnK.jpg

Did they alter the foundation letters' color into black or is it just because of the reflection?

All owners of Passport Founder’s Edition can apply for beta testing of their new Envoy app.

I was excited to see their app, but I'm a bit disappointed that it only supports certain types of nodes ^{[e.g. running on Tor and Electrum servers]}.
^{- Skip to "0:08 seconds on this" video.}

Still not a fan of the golden buttons on the front; I consider taking them out and spray-painting them.. 

Polish may do the trick. I hope these devices are easy to disassemble..

Or you can go with the traditional way of using duck tapes and plastics to cover other areas instead

[n0nce]

I found some comparison images between old and new Passport devices.
~Snipped~
https://i.imgur.com/nRzUJnK.jpg

Did they alter the foundation letters' color into black or is it just because of the reflection?

Totally missed that, you're right! I'd appreciate it since it's already flashy enough with all that gold colour..

All owners of Passport Founder’s Edition can apply for beta testing of their new Envoy app.

I was excited to see their app, but I'm a bit disappointed that it only supports certain types of nodes ^{[e.g. running on Tor and Electrum servers]}.
^{- Skip to "0:08 seconds on this" video.}

What other types would you like to connect to? Bitcoin Core through RPC? I guess it can be requested and / or added and PR'ed when it goes live on GitHub. On the other hand, it's meant to be a basic, small-feature-set thing to get people started easily without focus on 'power users' for the time being, as far as I know.

Still not a fan of the golden buttons on the front; I consider taking them out and spray-painting them.. 

Polish may do the trick. I hope these devices are easy to disassemble..

Or you can go with the traditional way of using duck tapes and plastics to cover other areas instead

You mean mask it with duct tape and spray paint it? That would work as a last resort, in case it's hard to take apart, sure.

[SFR10]

What other types would you like to connect to? Bitcoin Core through RPC? I guess it can be requested and / or added and PR'ed when it goes live on GitHub.

You nailed it ^{[I was hoping it'd have fewer node restrictions in comparison to Trezor Suite, but as things stand, it offers fewer options]}.
^{- I hope someone does the latter part of your quote.}

On the other hand, it's meant to be a basic, small-feature-set thing to get people started easily without focus on 'power users' for the time being, as far as I know.

You have a point, but isn't it easier to just connect ^[directly] our Bitcoin Core nodes instead? As someone who uses Windows OS, I decided to not deal with the hassle of running an Electrum server in the past ^{[CMIIW but AFAIK, it's still a similar case for Windows users]}.

You mean mask it with duct tape and spray paint it? That would work as a last resort, in case it's hard to take apart, sure.

Yes, exactly

[DireWolfM14]

@n0nce, have you tried to use the Passport with bitcoin core's external signer feature? 

Honestly, I've never played with the feature myself.  Since I do run my own electrum server I haven't been too concerned about the privacy issue, but I think more and more hardware wallet manufacturers should make integration with core more user friendly.

[n0nce]

What other types would you like to connect to? Bitcoin Core through RPC? I guess it can be requested and / or added and PR'ed when it goes live on GitHub.

You nailed it ^{[I was hoping it'd have fewer node restrictions in comparison to Trezor Suite, but as things stand, it offers fewer options]}.
^{- I hope someone does the latter part of your quote.}

Alright! I may look into this in the future (I know - I say this a lot.. got too many ideas and projects for a single life..).

On the other hand, it's meant to be a basic, small-feature-set thing to get people started easily without focus on 'power users' for the time being, as far as I know.

You have a point, but isn't it easier to just connect ^[directly] our Bitcoin Core nodes instead? As someone who uses Windows OS, I decided to not deal with the hassle of running an Electrum server in the past ^{[CMIIW but AFAIK, it's still a similar case for Windows users]}.

To me, it's definitely easier to connect to a personal Electrum server, this has been my go-to setup for what feels like forever. But I'm a person with a lot of devices and a lot of wallets, so it's always been easiest for me to have at least one box running a full node that I can access from anywhere, instead of running Bitcoin Core on my personal computers.
I wasn't aware of Bitcoin RPC being commonly used over the network though; only ever used that when accessing Core from the same machine. Last I checked it also had no encrypted authentication, so I believe it would be pretty risky to connect from phone to node through remote RPC.

For what it's worth, there is a guide for installing Bitcoin Core and Electrum on Windows here.

@n0nce, have you tried to use the Passport with bitcoin core's external signer feature? 

Honestly, I've never played with the feature myself.  Since I do run my own electrum server I haven't been too concerned about the privacy issue, but I think more and more hardware wallet manufacturers should make integration with core more user friendly.

I haven't! Thanks for this great suggestion; I will try at the latest when v2 arrives. Then I could check both devices back to back.

But they do have a video where they show how to do it with v1; it's under 10 minutes and explains everything quite well.
https://docs.foundationdevices.com/user-manual/software-wallets/bitcoin-core

[DireWolfM14]

@n0nce, have you tried to use the Passport with bitcoin core's external signer feature? 

Honestly, I've never played with the feature myself.  Since I do run my own electrum server I haven't been too concerned about the privacy issue, but I think more and more hardware wallet manufacturers should make integration with core more user friendly.

I haven't! Thanks for this great suggestion; I will try at the latest when v2 arrives. Then I could check both devices back to back.

But they do have a video where they show how to do it with v1; it's under 10 minutes and explains everything quite well.
https://docs.foundationdevices.com/user-manual/software-wallets/bitcoin-core

This conversation just got me thinking about the privacy aspect of using Core instead of an SPV client.  It's probably not something newbies are going to pursue unless it's super user-friendly and easy to set up, but it might make for a fun experiment nonetheless.  I think I'll add the experiment to my list of rainy day projects, and see if I can get the Trezor One to work with Core.

[n0nce]

@n0nce, have you tried to use the Passport with bitcoin core's external signer feature? 

Honestly, I've never played with the feature myself.  Since I do run my own electrum server I haven't been too concerned about the privacy issue, but I think more and more hardware wallet manufacturers should make integration with core more user friendly.

I haven't! Thanks for this great suggestion; I will try at the latest when v2 arrives. Then I could check both devices back to back.

But they do have a video where they show how to do it with v1; it's under 10 minutes and explains everything quite well.
https://docs.foundationdevices.com/user-manual/software-wallets/bitcoin-core

This conversation just got me thinking about the privacy aspect of using Core instead of an SPV client.  It's probably not something newbies are going to pursue unless it's super user-friendly and easy to set up, but it might make for a fun experiment nonetheless.  I think I'll add the experiment to my list of rainy day projects, and see if I can get the Trezor One to work with Core.

Okay, so I just tried following along the Foundation Devices' video and it did work fine-ish.
I like how Bitcoin Core is the very first option in the 'pair wallet' menu.

Unfortunately, the address verification fails, because the QR code from Bitcoin core (I checked using a QR code parser) contains 'bitcoin:BC1Q....', whereas passport expects the address in all lowercase.

My Passport is on the latest firmware version, so it's either possible that it worked when they made the video and something was broken between then and now, or it's possible that it never worked and was way at the bottom on some developer's todo-list and was never done. What suggests me this is that he doesn't show in the video how Passport scans and confirms the address. I will open a GitHub issue about this.

[DireWolfM14]

Okay, so I just tried following along the Foundation Devices' video and it did work fine-ish.
I like how Bitcoin Core is the very first option in the 'pair wallet' menu.

Nice.  I just imported a wallet from my ColdCard, which makes it easy.  However, it's just a watch only wallet used to export PSBTs.  In the process I noticed that my version of Bitcoin QT doesn't have external signer support, the option is greyed out on the GUI wallet-creation dialogue, and I get an error when I try from the console:

Compiled without external signing support (required for external signing) (code -4)

Apparently I'll have to compile my own GUI with external signer enabled to use a wallet like the Trezor One.  That just turned into a two-rainy-day project, lol.

Unfortunately, the address verification fails, because the QR code from Bitcoin core (I checked using a QR code parser) contains 'bitcoin:BC1Q....', whereas passport expects the address in all lowercase.
~
My Passport is on the latest firmware version, so it's either possible that it worked when they made the video and something was broken between then and now, or it's possible that it never worked and was way at the bottom on some developer's todo-list and was never done. What suggests me this is that he doesn't show in the video how Passport scans and confirms the address. I will open a GitHub issue about this.

That's actually a pretty slick feature, I hope they fix it.  Although after thinking about it, I'm so anal I'd probably still end up verifying the address the old-fashioned way.

[n0nce]

Okay, so I just tried following along the Foundation Devices' video and it did work fine-ish.
I like how Bitcoin Core is the very first option in the 'pair wallet' menu.

Nice.  I just imported a wallet from my ColdCard, which makes it easy.  However, it's just a watch only wallet used to export PSBTs.

Yes, with Passport it's the same thing. Basically you transfer PSBTs back and forth using a microSD card.

In the process I noticed that my version of Bitcoin QT doesn't have external signer support, the option is greyed out on the GUI wallet-creation dialogue, and I get an error when I try from the console:

Compiled without external signing support (required for external signing) (code -4)

Apparently I'll have to compile my own GUI with external signer enabled to use a wallet like the Trezor One.  That just turned into a two-rainy-day project, lol.

Yeah, Bitcoin Core default / minimal install options don't include everything...

Unfortunately, the address verification fails, because the QR code from Bitcoin core (I checked using a QR code parser) contains 'bitcoin:BC1Q....', whereas passport expects the address in all lowercase.
~
My Passport is on the latest firmware version, so it's either possible that it worked when they made the video and something was broken between then and now, or it's possible that it never worked and was way at the bottom on some developer's todo-list and was never done. What suggests me this is that he doesn't show in the video how Passport scans and confirms the address. I will open a GitHub issue about this.

That's actually a pretty slick feature, I hope they fix it.  Although after thinking about it, I'm so anal I'd probably still end up verifying the address the old-fashioned way.

You mean verifying manually by putting the Passport in front of your monitor and comparing some addresses letter by letter?
Sure; you can always do that. It's worth mentioning that the text file which Passport writes to the microSD also includes a few addresses that can be checked against Bitcoin Core's address tab, too.

[DireWolfM14]

Yes, with Passport it's the same thing. Basically you transfer PSBTs back and forth using a microSD card.

Still it's pretty straight forward.  Unfortunately however, incompatible with the more affordable hardware wallets on the market.

Yeah, Bitcoin Core default / minimal install options don't include everything...

I reckon you've been down this road before.  Any other options you recommend I consider?  Might as well turn it into a rainy-month-of-sundays.  

You mean verifying manually by putting the Passport in front of your monitor and comparing some addresses letter by letter?

Exactly.

Sure; you can always do that. It's worth mentioning that the text file which Passport writes to the microSD also includes a few addresses that can be checked against Bitcoin Core's address tab, too.

That makes things more convenient.  I do trust in my ability to keep my rigs free of malware.  I've been at it long enough, so trust my clipboard with regular verification.

[n0nce]

Yes, with Passport it's the same thing. Basically you transfer PSBTs back and forth using a microSD card.

Still it's pretty straight forward.  Unfortunately however, incompatible with the more affordable hardware wallets on the market.

You mean Bitcoin Core is incompatible with more affordable hardware wallets?

Yeah, Bitcoin Core default / minimal install options don't include everything...

I reckon you've been down this road before.  Any other options you recommend I consider?  Might as well turn it into a rainy-month-of-sundays. 

I was mainly referring to an issue where -txindex really helped me out. At that point in time, I wasn't aware that you can't actually look up a transaction if you don't have that toggled on.
The default value of -dbcache can also easily be too high or too low depending on use case and hardware availability.

But this all refers to building from source. I'm not actually sure what options are toggled or not when getting Bitcoin-Qt binaries.

Sure; you can always do that. It's worth mentioning that the text file which Passport writes to the microSD also includes a few addresses that can be checked against Bitcoin Core's address tab, too.

That makes things more convenient.  I do trust in my ability to keep my rigs free of malware.  I've been at it long enough, so trust my clipboard with regular verification.

Yeah; I'd still like the 'camera verification' to work as intended though, since the inclusion of a camera is one of the biggest selling points of this device. So please make it usable anywhere that makes sense..

[DireWolfM14]

You mean Bitcoin Core is incompatible with more affordable hardware wallets?

Not in general terms, no.  But as it's "shipped" and in regards to the specific method of exporting PSBTs from a watch only wallet and transfer them via mSD, yes.  The Trezor One and comparably priced wallets that I know of don't have a micro SD slot.  My comments were regarding the discussion of using core to avoid the privacy concerns of using SPV clients (without your own server.)  And as far as I know there's no way to sign a PSBT without client to pair with the Trezor One.  I suppose one could just use an empty electrum wallet to sign and broadcast.

I was mainly referring to an issue where -txindex really helped me out. At that point in time, I wasn't aware that you can't actually look up a transaction if you don't have that toggled on.
The default value of -dbcache can also easily be too high or too low depending on use case and hardware availability.

But this all refers to building from source. I'm not actually sure what options are toggled or not when getting Bitcoin-Qt binaries.

Interesting!  I would have assumed those would be defaults, even when building from source.  Thanks for the tip, I'm sure I would have overlooked that.

Yeah; I'd still like the 'camera verification' to work as intended though, since the inclusion of a camera is one of the biggest selling points of this device. So please make it usable anywhere that makes sense..

I hope they're lurking here reading your posts, you have a lot of great suggestions.

[PrivacyG]

Great thread.  I share your fears about battery dying while the device is getting a firmware upgrade, particularly if you never used a particular batch of batteries, never bought from the brand of batteries you just put in the Passport or if you unknowingly initialize an upgrade with low battery.  Is it actually likely this device could get hard bricked during an update if it dies during it?  I for one know this can definitely at least soft brick a Ledger, so would not be too surprised.

n0nce, would you mind sharing your thoughts about why someone should choose Foundation Passport over, say, a Trezor device?

-
Regards,
PrivacyG

[n0nce]

Great thread.  I share your fears about battery dying while the device is getting a firmware upgrade, particularly if you never used a particular batch of batteries, never bought from the brand of batteries you just put in the Passport or if you unknowingly initialize an upgrade with low battery.  Is it actually likely this device could get hard bricked during an update if it dies during it?  I for one know this can definitely at least soft brick a Ledger, so would not be too surprised.

Thanks, PrivacyG! To be fair, it comes with one set of the 'good batteries' (that don't suddenly die and do last for multiple hours), so you could use those in case you didn't use them right when you got the device.
If I remember correctly, either the device tells you to check the battery charge isn't too low or their instructions do. So you kind of do it at your own risk. I certainly haven't tried what happens when cutting power during a firmware update, but speaking in broad terms, this is something that can indeed happen when updating microcontroller firmware.
Keep in mind there are only 1,000 FE devices sold, and v2 fixed the battery issue so it's possible that nobody will ever run into a bricked Passport due to low battery...

n0nce, would you mind sharing your thoughts about why someone should choose Foundation Passport over, say, a Trezor device?

That's a good question. I believe the biggest benefit is airgap; not only for security but also for convenience. Especially when used through QR codes, you don't need to carry (or search for) anything, except the wallet itself (no cable and no microSD). Just hold the wallet's screen up to your computer / laptop / smartphone camera and transfer the PSBT that way. Best convenience I've had yet in a hardware wallet; and it doesn't even require a 'convenience vs security tradeoff', which is otherwise often the case.

Probably second would be that it has a secure element, which the Trezor doesn't. So less worry about what happens when it sits on your desk for 2 weeks while on holiday or something.
Third would be the larger 'user interface' (both screen size and buttons). It allows for much more comfortable, quick (pin / passphrase input) and confident use (e.g. when it comes to checking the recipient's address).

I don't know if Trezor is as good when it comes to the open-source hardware aspect, but I don't see hardware attacks as a very likely attack vector for most people anyway. It's still nice to have though, e.g. it's easily user-verifiable that the screen hasn't been tampered with (circuit etched on glass) and there are no closed-source chips anywhere in the device (e.g. keypad), just gives you a little extra peace of mind.

[PrivacyG]

Fair enough answer, thank you for your input.  I, for one, am particularly pleased by their idea about creating a Hardware Wallet device that is, similarly to Ledger, concealed under another object.  Ledger did great with the USB design, Foundation did great with the mobile one.

But at the same time, there is one thing I personally hate about both ideas.  It is that I think the more futuristic/modern design you put into the final product, the more likely it is that a criminal would take the device(s) during a robbery.  I can only guess the logo on the back and all of that is part of a marketing plan, right?  Would you say a less slick design and the lack of a logo on the back would make this device less of a target during robbery?

For instance, you have the FE vs v2 in a comparison image above.  My personal thoughts on the upgrade is that it is great they made it thinner, which makes it more concealed, but on the other hand it turned modern and reminds me of the more expensive classic devices we had decades ago.

If I had the choice, I would pick a very boring design with the same functionality over the modern v2.  But I definitely can not ignore that Foundation has one goal in their mind, which is SELLING products, for which reason a more modern aspect of it is more approachable by the public than a boring one would be.  Am I just too paranoid or does anyone else share my thoughts?

-
Regards,
PrivacyG

[n0nce]

Fair enough answer, thank you for your input.  I, for one, am particularly pleased by their idea about creating a Hardware Wallet device that is, similarly to Ledger, concealed under another object.  Ledger did great with the USB design, Foundation did great with the mobile one.

But at the same time, there is one thing I personally hate about both ideas.  It is that I think the more futuristic/modern design you put into the final product, the more likely it is that a criminal would take the device(s) during a robbery.  I can only guess the logo on the back and all of that is part of a marketing plan, right?  Would you say a less slick design and the lack of a logo on the back would make this device less of a target during robbery?

For instance, you have the FE vs v2 in a comparison image above.  My personal thoughts on the upgrade is that it is great they made it thinner, which makes it more concealed, but on the other hand it turned modern and reminds me of the more expensive classic devices we had decades ago.

If I had the choice, I would pick a very boring design with the same functionality over the modern v2.  But I definitely can not ignore that Foundation has one goal in their mind, which is SELLING products, for which reason a more modern aspect of it is more approachable by the public than a boring one would be.  Am I just too paranoid or does anyone else share my thoughts?

-
Regards,
PrivacyG

I do share your opinions completely. It's interesting that Foundation has never put out any marketing material (website, videos, ...) claiming its resemblance to an older mobile phone to be a feature for concealment, so that's the reason I can't go too hard on them not 100% fulfilling this concept. The design could just as well be the result of a design process that was looking for something which is easy to carry and use in one hand, with good legibility on the screen and large enough buttons for everyone to use.

You're also absolutely right that the gold elements and strong accents (in shape and color) don't reduce the chance of being targeted during robbery and make it stand out more in general. Both v1 and v2 don't really look like old phones, but I'd love this concept to be pursued by Foundation or another company in the future. In a lot of countries, such phones are still used either as primary, secondary or burner phones, so even seeing a person fiddling with what looks like a 2000's mobile phone, doesn't draw a lot of attention, in my opinion.

I'm debating on 'stealthening' my v2, through removing gold paint and maybe even painting the backside completely in black.
Another (much bigger) project idea would be to 'retrofit' the hardware into a real old phone's chassis; by using all the open-source files. This would also allow to confirm the hardware is 'really open-source' - if a random person on the internet is able to build their own device from scratch.

In the end, I'm not sure why they chose this design. Maybe it was simply a good shape / form factor (as described above), maybe they think that it can still pass as an old phone, even with modern styling, I'm not sure. Of course, it can't be too ugly if you're trying to sell thousands of it. But at least for the very limited v1 run, I guess they could have found 1,000 customers who buy a non-attractive looking (but very nicely concealed) model. Maybe @zherbert is reading and can reply!
I'm not sure about v2, but in v1 the back cover is simply a 'dumb shell' (no electronics or complex components whatsoever), so it would be nice and appreciated if they offered replacement back covers in e.g. black in the future. Easy, cheap, non-destructive mod which would give better concealment.