Currently we just display the estimated import tax, but we don't charge the customer. The customer then needs to pay it directly from UPS (or whatever carrier they select) upon package delivery.
I think there is a way where we could pay the import tax on behalf of the customer, and therefore charge them for the estimated tax during checkout. I'll explore if this is possible, because I like your idea. The only downside would be if the estimate is consistently lower than the actual tax; that would eat into our margins and we aren't quite as big as Amazon

So while the client is making the purchase he was to directly pay it to UPS instead to Foundation as a company? I may be thinking this wrong and I would love your input but, from a user perspective, this operation seems like it's a bit confuse - If I'm willing to pay for such a premium for such a device (considering the offers in the market), the least that I would expect is that I would pay whatever had to pay to Foundation and then the order would eventually come to my house - no need to make two separate transactions, one for you and one for UPS. I may be wrong on the following assumption, but doesn't it mean that by paying directly to UPS it makes me the one responsible for the package, thus it would be me who would have to argue with them if something went bad as opposed to being Foundation the ones responsible to care and making sure that the package arrives with no problems?
Regarding liquidity - I totally understand and support the concept that no company in the world (besides Google and Apple) has the same liquidity as Amazon has to have that kind of "compensation" system implemented. I think, however, that you could make some kind of partnership with a carrier (even having some of your devices in their warehouses?) and also ask them the % of situations that their simulation actually ended up on the wrong said a.k.a where the customer ended up paying more than what they were told. I know that in order to get good shipping values you'll need to have a higher volume of items, but at least I see space for working on the whole shipping taxes calculation (for countries outside US).
We will never again do a copper plating process on zinc alloy. We are exploring PVD coatings for future generations of Passport. The supplier had a really had time getting the color within our specification, and it was one of the main reasons we were delayed last year. We also had to throw away lots of parts due to surface finish issues.
For the keypad, we had challenges with both the number keys and the metal navigation keys. We do a pretty rigorous inspection process now, including grinding down posts of the metal keys if they don't feel good enough. In a few months we will be introducing a new keypad with more consistent performance, where the metal keys and plastic keys are backed by the same rubber membrane.
Regarding suppliers in general, we stick with the ones that do good work for us, and we look for new ones in areas where we are not satisfied. I think the only real way to evaluate a supplier is to run a batch of parts through them and see the output and of course see how they respond to feedback and iterate.
Interesting insight, thank you for it! n0nce also pointed out that the keypad felt a bit "weird" when compared with the previous version, so it's nice to also have a confirmation from your side - it's even better knowing that you already detected that it can be improved and improvements are already being put into place in the next generation!
Another question (if I may) : Regarding the funding that your company has managed to get so far, how do you manage the relationship with your investors? In one side you've got investors that want to have returns on their investment, but on the other hand you have the main purpose of your device that naturally makes the production costs high and directly impacts the amount of units that you are able to produce in order to make even, or make a tiny bit margin of profit. How do you deal and manage this situation with the investors?