While I agree that a lot of posts of @HackAR are intoned in a way which is killing off any discussion, I would not want you to quit the discussion. While I don’t like the aggressive attitude in this thread, it is still important.
As far as I understand it, FP (which you represent here) made the decision not to deliver the FP2 with out-of-the-box (optional) SU rights. I don’t need to tell you that it’s frustrating for people who regularly use apps which request SU.
Among the which demand SU are three which are particularly important to me: XPrivacy, TitaniumBackup, and AdFree. I assume you know that of these, only TitaniumBackup is available via the GooglePlay store. Especially XPrivacy is a perfect example why root access is not only liberating, but also educational. Without it, I would not even know that some of my apps try to collect location data. I have friends and colleagues with Fairphones which don’t use XPrivacy, despite my effort to convince them, but even they use, e.g., TitaniumBackup.
To be able to use them, I had to enable general root access when I got my FP, I had to allow to install apps from other sources [which I can untick], and I had to allow each app SU rights [wich I could do on a case-by-case basis, or permanently]. I had to jump through hoops - and now, you tell us that you don’t trust users to be warned by all this hoola-hooping. This does not convince me.
If you offer this option, I would, of course use it. So would others.
I would basically have to if I want to use a proper backup solution. The one which came with FP is rubbish, and pushing everything to ‘the cloud’ is not an option. I tell everyone on this forum to make a proper backup before sending their phone in to support, and they need SU rights for that.
What I don’t grasp is what the difference actually is. As I said, when my FP arrived, I had to allow root access to FP OS - I assume, by the way, that this is also needed for to the “Peace of Mind” app, which as far as I understand needs SU rights to work. It did not come “pre-rooted”, but I had to allow root access.
So what is the actual difference now?
That I have to jump through just another hoop?
What this means for support is not fully clear from what you wrote. I fully understand that you cannot deliver software support for problems I create myself, e.g. by using apps which require root. People who expect this cannot be helped, in many ways, and support openly should say so. We, as a community, try to help each other in those cases - check, e.g., my thread on trouble relating to Google Cloud Messaging I am experiencing currently. I expect that everybody who has a problem with his or her FP checks back with the community. And I expect from support that after I tried everything (including to reset my FP), I can ask them and do not get standard email responses like "have you tried turning it off and on again. Regardless if my phone is rooted or not. I want people, not support drones. I think FP can deliver this. Even with root access enabled.
I bought the FP because I wanted to support your efforts to deliver a “fairer” phone, fully aware that it is not possible to produce one in the current circumstances. However, root access was a big part of the appeal, and I would not like to miss it. If the FP would not have had dual SIM and root access, I would not have bought it. Also, pre-installed GApps would have deterred me: Fairphone was about choices.
Don’t take that away from us.
You would be much less awesome.