It feels like for years we were constantly told by these corporations "it's impossible to have slim, tiny laptops and make them customizable", and I guess at some level I believed that, and just accepted that laptops with upgradable components were a thing of the past.
After seeing the framework, I'm more than a little annoyed that I fell for this. They proved you can have a slim, clean laptop that's somewhat modular, and more impressively, with something like 1% of Apple's budget to do it. Had I known about it, I probably wouldn't have paid an arm and a leg for a maxed-out Macbook Pro a year ago. MacOS is nice, probably my favorite consumer operating system currently available, but Apple's walled garden approach is beyond annoying.
Linus (the "tech tips" one) said something that sticks in my mind: "The only reason other companies can't do this - and Framework proved it - is because they don't care."
"Imagine being an engineer at a company at Apple, and it being your job to design the mechanism that makes it so that machine cannot start up unless the chassis is fully sealed. Apple spent actual fucking money making sure that product would not work unless it is in the exact chassis they shipped it in."
Apple's consistently demonstrates that their most important customers are their shareholders. They are experts at walking the line between maximizing profits and alienating their regular customers. If they felt that a modular computer would have a higher ROI, they would be all over it.
Honestly, I would not be surprised if Apple 'invented' the idea of 'integrated dongles' before their next keynote so they could sell you a $95 usb 2.0 port.
For what it's worth I don't think Apple has actually ever done this, and whatever made him believe they do was probably some other oversight during their disassembly/reassembly of the laptop
To be fair, if a company wants to produce something that only works on one set of hardware, that should be fine. We simple choose not to use it, right? And many of us /do/ choose to use it? But why do we choose to? Because we find that we're too busy to maintain a Linux-based workstation.
While there are questionable practices by Apple and many other machine producers, what you can't argue against is that in limiting the hardware that MacOS has to work with, they're able to deliver a level of stability and user experience that you don't get with Linux.
Sure, it would be great if we could replace the batteries, if we could upgrade the memory, and easily fix broken parts, but that isn't the company's ethos. The company produces devices that are plug and play, high grade consumer electronics. Nobody forces us to buy these products.
Anyway, that being said, the framework machines look super interesting and if they were UK available, I'd probably get one for a non-critical Linux-based workstation.
As if choosing a $1k+ computer to use for years was equivalent to choosing the flavor of ice cream scoops.
The "voting with your wallet" argument doesn't work when there's several variables in play, and the optimal configurations don't exist on the market. Like e.g. I'd like to buy a computer that's just like Macbook, except with repairable/swappable/upgradeable components. Or a phone that's just like iPhone, except with replaceable battery, a headphone jack, and repairable home button. But I can't have them - even if I'm ready to pay a bit extra, and if I'd welcome a thicker device. These options literally don't exist. Nothing similar to them exists. Particularly on the repairability front, every vendor is choosing to just not offer it.
> I'd like to buy a computer that's just like Macbook, except with repairable/swappable/upgradeable components
That's the thing, making something plug and play and mostly "driver-free" would be very hard to almost impossible. Framework laptops look amazing but they will require at least a bit more maintenance and knowledge, and that is fine too.
You say all this, but you would agree; We really can't be telling private companies or individuals what to and what not to do with their technologies, right?
1) How do we enforce that at smaller scales?
2) How would we prevent our regulation from squashing innovative solutions to problems, or enhancing safety in critical applications?
I agree with your larger point, regarding limited hardware support, etc.
I agree that Apple shouldn't have to support random mods / hardware components / etc and that their selling point is "it just works".
But then again, they don't have to be dicks about it. If they're able to detect that the hardware has somehow been modified, maybe just show some message along the lines of "you've modified the hardware, we're not supporting this anymore, you're on your own" instead of bricking it.
Where is that quote from? I wasn't able to find it via Google. Anyway, a computer that refuses to turn on after been tampered with does have its uses, particularly if your threat model is government secret services.
Realistically, if your threat model is government secret services, and you're using unmodified consumer grade electronics, then you're in 'danger' no matter what. You can't effectively mitigate a threat at the state level using resources produced under the watchful eye of the same state. All they have to do is ask the producer to swap out the device they gave you with a device that comes compromised out of the box. And that's assuming the tech is perfect. Most likely they just hire someone to defeat the countermeasures. However many resources Apple has, I assure you even the most janky state has more.
Special hardware seems 007 childish to me. What's better, having a high-tech tricked-out phone/laptop, or to just have a random stock Android with an inoffensive sim card in it? It seems obvious to me that if you're being targeted, tailed and tracked and probed, you've already lost.
No, I mean if you're buying a laptop off the shelf and not ripping telemetry components and whatnot (WIFI card/airgap for example). Customizing hardware to foil any out of the box attacks, rather than some sharks-and-lasers config to 'protect it'. Governments do this all the time for even slightly sensitive information.
Commenter above was saying though that the device's anti-tamper tech would save you from state level attacks. I'm just getting at the fact that that's not going to work, since if a proverbial 'they' want to take you out, there's other ways to do so you can't overcome. Just a few examples that came to me about how easy it is to foil anti-tampering measures.
Your "random stock Android" likely has a boatload of exploits open unless it's a Google Pixel.
> It seems obvious to me that if you're being targeted, tailed and tracked and probed, you've already lost.
Depends on which government agency watchlist you are. If you are some sort of Islamist terrorist, the tools that are open to the government are far more capable than if you are some sort of low level drug dealer.
There are legit security reasons you’d want this. Giving the owner of the equipment the ability to manage this would have been the appropriate solution.
There are legit security reasons to employ platforms that accommodate in-house repair. 'Security' can also include requirements for traceability at the component level.
Well, the other reason is that customers don't care either. I certainly don't. The last desktop build I made 5 years ago hasn't had a single component changed in that entire time.
It's not just about upgrading components, but also about having more choice during initial specification. It's a real PITA trying to find laptops that have almost everything you want, and inevitably you need to make multiple compromises.
And it's also about replacing broken components without having to ditch the whole laptop.
I'm really excited about how Framework could potentially shake up the whole industry!
> Apple proved that most people don’t want too many choices
They proved that taking away choices is still better than the shitshow their competitors are running.
Apple proved that a few simple product names are less confusing than literally 6 different "brands" of laptops from a single company. That doesn't mean people don't want choices though, they just don't want to feel like they're getting trolled by badly designed websites throwing all the possible laptop configurations in their face. Even if you know what the specs mean it still feels like a major waste of time to try and compare the 20 devices on the screen.
I want to configure every detail of my laptop, not 2 details on one of 200 laptops.
Apple also proved that making devices difficult to upgrade, maintain and repair is harmful for everything and everyone other than Apple.
That doesn't make it impossible to get such configuration options. If I can choose how much RAM I want, they could just as well offer the "no RAM" option so I can keep the two modules of my old laptop. Instead they lie to our faces claiming RAM has to be soldered on for some reason, making that impossible. Same with SSDs etc.
I would understand it if a manufacturer offered some ultra high-end model with custom storage like in the PS5. But if the Framework laptop can have swappable RAM and SSDs with almost the same thickness as a (insufficiently cooled) Macbook it's obvious why that stuff is soldered in.
I'm not pushing back too hard on this idea, because in general you are likely right about almost anything, that most people don't care that much. However, I'm not sure that Apple really proved that most people don't want too many choices. The choice to buy an Apple computer could be for any number of reasons. Like for example, I really like macOS and the integration between my iPhone and my MacBook for things like iMessage. Anytime I've bought an Apple computer it's felt like I have to compromise on the hardware options, but I still do it because I like other aspects of the overall ecosystem.
I don't have market analytics, only single cases, but nobody who has ever asked me for help about a computer has wanted to know what the difference is between this 'Intel' part vs 'Celeron' part vs 'AMD', carried on to graphics, disk technology, etc. They typically not only don't indicate a desired minimum amount of memory, but cannot reliably talk about system ram vs storage.
What they want is to know they are getting a good deal and that they aren't buying a lemon, something that cannot meet their needs.
What Apple did is decide they should really distinguish on classes of identifiable hardware differences, eg. a better larger screen for a "pro" class, have good/better/best distinctions within that, and customization for those who are picky.
I assume the intersection between people who have particular hardware requirements and those who do not understand their hardware requirements is extremely small these days. Apple doesn't sell computers which really fall short these days, so I'm able to focus the conversation on usage, user-impacting hardware features, and long-term budgeting (e.g. planning even as far as the replacement for the machine they are buying)
Look back to Steve Jobs’s return. Long before they had ecosystem lock in, before even the iPod was released, he simplified the range drastically to make it easier for people to make the buying decision.
Also, anyone who says “it’s felt like I have to compromise on the hardware options” is an outlier by definition.
I feel like this is a bit disingenuous. The general populous/average consumer prefers simplified options. They aren't tech savvy as many here are. When you throw a bunch of specs at them their eyes glaze over. And then ask you if they can get on their Facebook.
It makes sense from a business sense to have fewer models with small changes between them. You could have tech workers that assemble every custom order. That costs a lot more than a simplified inventory of a few different models that are already pre-assembled, with no hardware customization.
I like the Framework laptops as well, but I think there's a problem I'm not sure is gonna work out in the end.
If I understood it correctly, you can buy replacement parts only from Framework. They will have supply issues, and customers will be unhappy.
I guess if the laptops don't ever break, or if the customers' need for replacement parts is more theoretical than real, it could work out. Or they somehow manage to get over the small, niche manufacturer hump and become a Lenovo with massive scale. I doubt that's gonna happen.
> If I understood it correctly, you can buy replacement parts only from Framework. They will have supply issues, and customers will be unhappy.
RAM, wireless, and storage aren't chained to Framework, and are effectively the only parts you can reasonably buy for any existing laptop in the current day.
I would not be surprised if battery and screen replacements start popping up, but that's just a guess not something I'd bet on.
That Framework will be the only suppliers of parts that other laptops don't even attempt to make replaceable is not a worrying situation, it's a hopeful one.
AFAIK they generally use the same industry standard interfaces for RAM/SSD/etc as all other non-shit laptops.
The problem would come in if a Framework-specific part breaks, but at least those generally seem to be pretty simple (apart from the motherboard, at least).
I haven't checked everything but the RAM looks like it is standard: "For memory, the Framework Laptop has two SO-DIMM sockets supporting DDR4 DRAM at up to DDR4-3200 speeds"
People care about Right To Repair; that's why the FTC has been pressured into action recently on the matter (not that I entertain any hope that that bunch of bought-and-paid-for bureaucrats will actually achieve anything.) Framework has blown a vast hole through the false arguments offered in opposition. One must simply care. That's all it takes. Every manufacturer that has opposed RTR has the means and talent to do at least as well has Framework has done, and probably better. They just don't care.
Thankfully the vestigial remains of our free market are sufficient to run the experiment.
Do customers care though? Perhaps customer advocates do. And that's probably the best place for it, since it's such a niche and wonky idea.
And that's why "free markets" will never solve this. (And that's whether the "free" in free markets means freedom from regulations, or freedom for people to participate in the market).
IMHO this is why the European system of strong regulatory bodies tends to work better than the US system of "wait for a customer to experience damages, then recoup through the courts, and then the companies learn their lesson."
And yet here we are; despite the 446e6 strong market place the EU supposedly represents their regulatory power has not delivered what we see here. No, instead we have an American company motivated by only the belief that their product will succeed in the market kicking open the door.
Well the question is do you want every laptop to have the customizability of Framework's laptops, or should there instead be a minimum bar set for warranty/repairability? I think the second is probably what's needed, and the EU has been better both at imposing standards and ensuring warranties and repairability.
The answer is I want a competitive market filled with options that range from a completely sealed, disposable monoliths to machines like this Framework product where components are easily replaced and/or upgraded by me or any qualified or unqualified person I choose. And I want that _without_ the easily circumvented bureaucratic hellscape of lobbyists and captured regulators incestuously welding down the status quo in perpetuity.
Have you considered that the current landscape is a product of a competitive market? Historically laptops were never as repairable as desktops. Most parts of those bulky 1990s Powerbooks, Latitudes, and Compaqs were hard to access due to proprietary screws. Every laptop manufacturer had non-standard components and non-standard ports and those components and ports would evolve every 6 months. If you wanted replacement parts and you weren't a corporate repair shop, you were shit out luck before Ebay existed. The adhesive-sealed laptop that you resent is a product of the standardization that corporations and suppliers eventually sought after going through the Wild West phase of the mass market PC.
A competitive market isn't a marry-go-round where every idea gets its turn under the sun for all eternity. It's an arena where some rise and many perish. In the '90s and '00s, many ideas fell through, many companies collapsed, and many technologies become outmoded. What has come out of that is the sealed computer of today.
"Have you considered that the current landscape is a product of a competitive market?"
I have. I note that large numbers of people build PCs from components and that this market is large enough to be a primary concern for a constellation of manufacturers and has been for decades. You can buy an IC with 1200 contacts and install it yourself on the kitchen table. There is no other segment of the microelectronics world were this level of commoditization exists and yet it has stood the test of time. Transferring this behavior to mobile machines seems like an inevitable and long overdue step to me.
"Historically laptops were never as repairable as desktops."
History is a poor yardstick here. A number of forces have emerged that change the landscape. Among these are amazing design tools that enable a startup to go from zero to a complete, shipping modular design in 18 months (establishing a defacto standard, btw), tooling that delivers rapid fabrication in small volume, standardized, high performance serial busses that enable simple yet powerful architectures, robust solid state storage devices and the integration of some difficult components into CPUs. It used to require the resources of major manufacturers and their proprietary knowledge and capabilities to pull off marketable mobile designs. That era has passed and the commodity era is here.
"The adhesive-sealed laptop that you resent"
I do not resent monolithic products. I own several. I will buy more. I resent the lack of a choice. I expect that modular mobile machines will take their place among the equipment I acquire, and that these will become the major focus of my concern, whereas the monoliths will be relegated to ancillary tasks.
"What has come out of that is the sealed computer."
And they won't go away. The question is how much room is there for modular systems. I believe there is a lot. I imagine a Newegg filled with commodity mix and match mobile components from a vast number of vendors.
Exactly. And in particular, I want companies showing the absolute limit of what's possible if you don't worry about modularity, and other companies like Framework showing how much of that they can provide while also using modular components. That's two different directions of innovation that both need pushing, as useful competitive forces that people care about.
Ideally I would agree with you, but reality demonstrates that markets tend to converge on one standard rather than let two coexist. CISC vs RISC, Firewire vs USB, Floppy vs Zip, IrDA vs Bluetooth, etc. Now it's modular vs integrated.
That happens with technologies where there's a strong benefit to standardization. Standardizing on USB and Bluetooth means your devices can interoperate.
There's already no "standard" laptop design, just a set of desirable properties people want. And there's already no push to converge; there are many laptop vendors. There's plenty of room for a new vendor with different priorities (like modularity); there's more room for such a vendor than there is for one more undifferentiated vendor.
The minimum bar is a theoretical idea. The reality is yet more audits and auditors and internal regulatory staff to produce more documentation that "proves" compliance. It's a huge weight, not lightly welcomed.
If we increase the warranty requirements for companies, the repairability will necessarily increase as well.
However, people do keep in mind this still may not result in better third-party repairability - it may be things like easier reclaiming of components off of boards by the manufacturer to put into refurbished swap-out units.
Except that regulatory burdens are the kinds of barriers to entry that prevent a company like Framework from existing in the first place.
That just leaves you with entrenched companies doing the bare minimum for compliance, and lobbying for loopholes to protect their own market positions.
Here in the U.S. any kind of basic regulation == communism, but I when I imagine "right to repair", I imagine a free market where Apple is allowed to sell glued-in batteries and Framework is allowed to sell repairable products, but all companies must publish the private internal repair documentation they already have and sell the replacement parts they already have, if available. Apple may legitimately not be able to sell replacement batteries, if even Apple themselves can't replace them, but at least there's transparency for the consumer. Eventually I imagine Apple could no longer get away with this practice, not because they are legally forbidden, but because people would become aware of it.
All those companies want to hold out for the idea that they can monopolize some corner of the industry - none of them want to be turned into purveyors of commodity products in the face of heavy competition. But the future likely lies down that path.
A desktop you built using standardized components you sourced from a competitive market with a plethora of alternatives specifically designed for easy assembly. Should any component fail you can obtain a replacement and perform the repair yourself. Doubtless these affordances are a part of why you chose to assemble you're machine yourself.
You do indeed care. The inability to extrapolate this to laptop machines seems obtuse.
No, I still don't care at all about the customizability. I did it mostly because I had to use Windows but didn't want to deal with an OEM's crap ware. The customizability was actually an impediment to get what I wanted: a box.
I don't doubt that a huge market of interchangeable parts made this easier. But it's important to separate the ends from the means here, when it comes to customer concerns. The customers that want customizability and upgradability are a vanishingly small slice of customers. (Just as are the ones who want to run Linux, and that small slice does include me.)
"I did it mostly because I had to use Windows but didn't want to deal with an OEM's crap ware."
Can you not imagine the vast market of people that might want a laptop not loaded with OEM crap ware? Because that is exactly what could emerge if Framework manages to establish a market of commodity mobile components.
The simpler route would be to have an OEM that didn't install crap ware, rather than having to order a basket of parts and assemble them.
I went the basket route because it required less research for me, because I just wanted to get to my end result as quickly as possible.
Grander goals about establishing ecosystems that serve other eventual end goals is not the way that most money is spent. (Though I do spend my money that way in other areas, such as with climate action, the PC market does not matter that much to me.)
You have just cited two more excellent reasons for modular laptops and commodity components; component selection and the environment. That brings the total to three, including the "OEM crap ware"
You're a potential customer of this product, your cognitive dissonance on the matter notwithstanding.
I've only had laptops for over a decade. And I had system board failures.
Honestly, I'd rage if I had to throw it out together with the perfectly good CPU, GPU/VRAM and maybe half the RAM and pay for a used replacement board with all of those integrated.
Or what, buy a rework station and risk damaging them or having them work improperly due to shit soldering skills?
I guess I could learn to fix the board itself. But that's pretty hard, there are no schematics, no components for most laptops, failures are not evident and one component can lead to a cascade of failures across the board. A used board was $100. Now they're ~$500 because there's a CPU and GPU there.
My next computer will be a desktop in a handcrafted case (I'm also trying to fit a Li-Ion battery/UPS between the PSU and components).
> (I'm also trying to fit a Li-Ion battery/UPS between the PSU and components)
This should totally be a thing. I wish it was a thing. It doesn't even have to provide hours of runtime, just needs to be enough to handle the occasional stupid California brownout.
You might want to reconsider. I've found a separate UPS to be invaluable because, as you'll find, just getting power to the box is not sufficient. Other devices need power as well, especially network switches and displays.
Yeah, it is the most efficient way to power everything (no conversion losses). 30 minutes is enough tbh.
The battery will fit in an empty PSU case, I just need some custom cables and connectors for the passthrough, my biggest problem is charging and switchover. Looks like I will need a custom board for that. I thought it'd be easier heh
Why handcrafted instead of the framework laptop?
Are you just itching to do that project, or is there some other issue you had with getting the laptop from them?
It's more future proof. And performance is unmatched. Handcrafted because I want the smallest, lightest microATX case. Should I share the design? I have it ready in SolidWorks.
I will still need a laptop away from home and/or as a portable display, that'll be one of my old 17 inchers or the cheapest one I can get (Haswell gen lol).
Whereas any dating of when my last desktop build was would be deceptive because they're replaced piece by piece. The closest occasion I can give is when I went from one to two desktops, but even then half the guts of the one I had before went into the new case, and were replaced in the old case with new purchases.
I mean, I've met people that only wear underwear once or twice before throwing it away, too, but I wouldn't say that's normal. People would generally rather replace a drive, processor, ram, or screen than spend 10x as much on an entirely new system. They don't because the manufacturers make that option difficult or impossible.
People didn't love VCR/TV combos, and people don't love this. Manufacturers love this.
Your desktop doesn't have a battery in it, like laptops do. Batteries are the one component in a laptop that is guaranteed to degrade over the course of a few years and eventually make the product unusable. The battery is glued in on the MacBook Pro, so it will eventually become useless. It's as simple as that, and very unfortunate. It's nice to have the option to upgrade the other parts too, though, and why not expect this, if it's clearly possible, as the Framework laptop shows?
Reminder that Apple isn't the problem. Their customers are. I know movie quotes are seriously lowbrow for this audience, but somewhat relevant here, and correct:
"That system is our enemy. But when you're inside, you look around, what do you see? Businessmen, teachers, lawyers, carpenters. The very minds of the people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that system and that makes them our enemy."
Not to Godwin the thread, but this absurd apologia for anti-freedom products from the standpoint of convenience and apathy reminds me of the old quip about Hitler making the trains run on time.
I hope a decade from now you love the soul-crushing Snow Crash-esque dystopia your choices will have created, because you will have absolutely no moral authority to complain about it.
The problem is that for most people there are no clear incentives to making the "good" choices in those matters, while there are many incentives to make the "bad" choice, like gaining an edge in the local competitive market by virtue of a more efficient tool. Prototypical tragedy of the commons.
But imagine if your next desktop build required you to also throw away your SSD, monitor, keyboard, mouse, and speakers. You can also re-use a case in future builds, and re-use a high quality PSU in future builds.
I also don't really care to replace individual components in my systems, but being able to upgrade laptop hardware without throwing away the chasis and storage seems pretty nice to me.
My next desktop build will require entirely new parts, and the prior build will be demoted to other uses, or given to someone else who has a better use for it. As a whole unit, it still has utility. If I scavenge an essential piece, all the rest go to waste.
If it were a big energy hog (it's not), then it may make sense to put it out to pasture and scavenge the parts for others.
The exception is my keyboard, is like my toothbrush, if toothbrushes could last for two decades. That I will keep and move to the new computer, as keyboard technology is not advancing.
For laptops, I see even less utility for upgrades than for a desktop, but perhaps that's just me.
Easy upgrades mean easy repair. The opposite is also true.
You can move your keyboard to a new computer because you are able to detach it without melting half the device with a heat gun. With laptops it's not that easy. When the MacBook keyboards broke all the time a few years ago, a keyboard replacement meant also replacing the speakers, battery and touchpad. Not for any technical reason, but because Apple doesn't like screws. The MS Surface Pro and Surface Laptop couldn't be repaired by anyone, not even MS themselves - if a single $20-30 part fails you have to spend $1000 again. Doesn't sound like a great deal if you ask me.
You might not need or want upgrades and maybe you're lucky and nothing ever breaks. But having the choice only comes with upsides.
> The last desktop build I made 5 years ago hasn't had a single component changed in that entire time.
My last desktop build is still going strong nine years later. Swapped out a broken motherboard, upgraded to OCed DDR3, and stuck in a PCIe card for NVMe: good as new.
The only a tiny minority of people probably care about the upgradability of their laptop. Many many more probably care about the repairability of their laptop, though.
I think you're right. Many people "care" about repairability in the market sense of getting pissed off that a keyboard replacement costs >$500 for some reason. The right kind of marketing could bring them onboard.
That's only the half of it - everyone cares when they have to repair their device. You start to feel the unfairness of it when companies charge you exorbitant prices for common components because they've designed it in a non-standardised way for that particular device. Or when you face the reality of (for e.g.) having to pay to replace the whole board because of a malfunctioning soldered RAM or soldered SSD, and realise how shortsighted it was to buy a device that is designed not to be repaired.
>The last desktop build I made 5 years ago hasn't had a single component changed in that entire tim
I upgraded my monitor and changed 2 keyboards(I am hard on them) with a laptop if you fuck your keyboard you probably have to use an external one or hope that replacing your laptop keyboard is cheap enough and you can find a spare.
My laptop has a single thunderbolt port. I use it for my 5k monitor. If that port goes, I need to get a new laptop. (That new laptop will be the Framework laptop, if they offer a 15" hi-DPI option.)
If my laptop was a Framework laptop, I'd just need to buy a pretty inexpensive new port and swap it out. It's a pretty big deal, in my opinion.
I care. I often swap out parts. My family and friends care, because I help them swap out parts when needed, especially during critical failures when they need it working ASAP and can't risk some corporation formatting the hard drive for no reason.
And my coworkers care because they're fellow techies and do this stuff, too.
A friend of mine has a fairphone and broke its screen while he was staying with me. The fairphone is quite similar insofar as it is designed to be long lived and user serviceable. He ordered a screen, next day delivery, and changed it himself for about £60.
Soldered ram significantly decreases repair incidents (from unseated laptop ram) and increases runtime reliability (from direct electrical contact of said ram). It allows for the machine to ship with an optimized ram configuration (lane count, timing). It also reduces the part cost and device footprint.
Most RAM comes with a "lifetime" warranty. IMO if the soldered RAM is so great, they should give me a lifetime guarantee they'll replace the MB if the soldered RAM fails. Then I'd be ok with it.
And it's impossible to buy an upgrade for just one component. If you want 16GB of RAM you better be ready to buy an i7. If you want a nice 4k display you better be ready to buy a totally maxed out machine.
Just being able to use my own NVMe disk in something like a Framework translates into savings for me because I don't need a huge disk in my laptop and can reuse one that's too small for my server or desktop.
Linus has now invested in Framework, which constrains how he is allowed to review laptops on his channel because of the possibility of a conflict of interest. He says it's worth it to support what he believes is a great company with an awesome product vision.
"invested" is a bit of a misnomer here. He bought several of them for his employees. He was courted by Framework to buy into the company, but as far as I know, he noped out of that deal.
He posted a video a week ago indicating otherwise and that he is now a stock owner in the company. It's called "I'm Legally Obligated to Disclose This".
Linus has shown his flagrant disregard for impartiality or any form of integrity over and over again. Look through the LTT back catalogue and you’ll see that Intel is big sponsor of theirs. The fact that he gives “honest” reviews of Intel products doesn’t magically make it okay.
You’d never see Dr. Ian Cutress of AnandTech or Steve from GamersNexus pulling this shit.
Of course he makes much more money than both of them combined. Make no mistake that he is an entertainer and a businessman.
GamersNexus is all the time reviewing stuff positively and then taking on the same enterprise as sponsor. They can do that because their viewers know that they will still be very critical with the next product.
LTT also really always had the proper balance. Sponsored reviews are marked, sponsored segments are marked, and they are not holding back on negative reviews for long term channel sponsors. They totally ripped into Intel again and again for the failure to compete with AMD, and at the same time have Intel sponsor new hardware upgrades for team members in a sponsored mini-series. Totally fair.
> at the same time have Intel sponsor new hardware upgrades for team members in a sponsored mini-series. Totally fair.
Of course Intel did a big marketing push right as their products were the least competitive, and I'm sure LMG was paid large. Putting that kind of stunt in the same league as GN reviewing a product from a company that previously sponsored them (which is, of course, all that LTT does) is simply ridiculous.
"Balance" is such a weasel word in this context. They're playing both sides, plain and simple.
AnandTech quit doing SSD endurance testing as soon as vendors started selling trash TLC and QLC. Is that a coincidence? Can you really trust them?
There's a point where you need to put some trust in reviewers because the industry is set up to make them dependent on the manufacturers. However, there's a huge difference between traditional reviewers where employees are doing reviews and new age reviewers where influencers are doing the reviews.
People like Linus and Steve have way more incentive to put their own integrity over short term interests like pleasing a manufacturer, so it's very unlikely you'll ever see them shilling for anyone. Getting caught doing that once would ruin their brand (and credibility) because they are their brand.
In other words, there are no scape goats in the influencer space so they have way more incentive to be completely honest and transparent.
I remember when Tom's Hardware was new and I think the current generation of influencers / reviewers are going to obliterate the traditional media companies that have turned into affiliate marketing shills.
I think a lot of people underestimate how financially important it is for groups like LMG and GN to maintain the trust of their core audience.
In the videos Linus does breaking down LMG's revenue, about a third of it comes from a tiny fraction of their audience - merch and direct subscriptions. I'm sure it's a similar chunk if not more for GN through modmats, mousepads, and Patreon.
Even if they sold out their integrity and still got millions of views, it's that "hardcore" audience they can't really get back. In an enthusiast space where a large chunk of the audience are professionals with disposable income, it's a lot to lose.
I haven't seen anything from Linus or Steve to suggest that's the only reason they care so much about their integrity, they both seem to genuinely care, but y'know parasocial relationships etc.
There is a conflict of interest there, but as a counterpoint, pretty much every time he does a build video it seems like he picks AMD (at least, post Ryzen).
This effect exists all across society. Some culture seems to drive laziness / selfishness across the (irl) social network. Every would care but nobody can pull the whole network in the right direction. That's how your company doesn't have the right tool, the right app, the right something.
As a student, I do want my laptop to be slim and tiny, but I was misled by Apple into thinking slim and tiny is only possible if the laptop isn't at all repairable. Might sell my MacBook Pro for this thing. Though macOS is a guilty pleasure I will miss :(
I reserved a Steam Deck because I wanted to support Valve's efforts to expand support for Windows games (and by extension, apps) to Linux through their open source Proton project. I think the future of Linux is looking very bright.
I did a little research on this, and it seems the main (perhaps only?) problem is that all mobo configs come with an 11th gen Intel CPU with Iris Xe graphics.[1] Since the last Intel Macs used 10th gen chips with Iris Plus graphics, and Apple isn't making any more Intel Macs, it's likely that macOS will never support Iris Xe. What a shame. While I do intend to switch to Linux eventually, the ability to run macOS would have made it easier to switch from a MacBook.
Slim and tiny is what I wanted when thinkpads were smaller and lighter than average.
Once we hit five pounds and I had a bag that stopped caring about smaller laptops? Well that was about the time that desktops died and I could have used a workstation class laptop with some more flexibility.
But I opted for simple and put my energy somewhere else instead. Seems a lot of people did.
It's probably an important distinction between laptops and tablets that a laptop is free to expand into three dimensions when in use.
Strictly speaking, the throw of the keyboard when in use is not limited by the dimensions of the laptop when it's not in use. There is air above and sometimes below that the keys can occupy. Having the keys raise up when opening the lid might be mechanically impractical, but having the lid depress all of the keys is a matter of ignoring key presses until the lid is opened past an angle where it stops touching the top row of keys.
Based on the shape of the smudges on my screen I'm pretty sure that already happens to an extent.
I don't even care about slim. Light yes. Slim doesn't really do a whole lot for me past a certain point (which for me was a decade ago). Being able to replace parts is way more important.
> we were constantly told by these corporations "it's impossible to have slim, tiny laptops and make them customizable"
Because it’s true. The thing is “power users” and “regular users” look at that tradeoff differently. The bad part of economies of scale is that they reward conformity (you can pick your model T in any color, as long as that color is black).
The framework would a hard time competing in the general laptop market, but luckily for them, they don’t have to. There’s a niche for specialized products and they are taking advantage.
I’ve looking at their laptops since they announced, I’m just hoping they can release a Ryzen one, and then I’ll be on the fence between theirs and whatever Apple has to show for a ARM pro laptop (14”-15”).
The only reason these two groups look at it differently is because people in the "regular users" group don't know how bad things are, and how good things could be. What makes you think the Framework would have a hard time competing in the general laptop market? The baseline, preassembled model starts at $1000 and comes with Windows 10 Home. It has a quad-core i5, 8 GB RAM, 256 GB storage, a nice 2256x1504 display, and it's thin and light (1.3kg, 11.7" x 9" x 0.6"). Compare that to your other thin and light options at this pricepoint:
XPS 13: $1020
* i5
* 8 GB RAM
* 256 GB storage
* 1920 x 1200 display
* 1.2 kg, 11.6" x 7.8" x 0.6"
MacBook Pro: $1300
* M1
* 8 GB RAM
* 256 GB storage
* 2560 x 1600 display
* 1.4kg, 12" x 8.7" x 0.6"
This isn't even accounting for repairability as a feature. Consumers don't care about that as it stands, because they don't know they should. But once they realize, it will become a selling point, too.
>I’ve looking at their laptops since they announced, I’m just hoping they can release a Ryzen one, and then I’ll be on the fence between theirs and whatever Apple has to show for a ARM pro laptop (14”-15”).
I'm in the same boat. While I in principle would love to invest in a powerful AMD laptop with tons of upgradeability with decent Linux support, Apple's next offerings which may give upgraded displays, my favorite trackpads, impressive power and ~20 hours of battery life is very hard to ignore.
We suspect the Framework's high-brightness, high-resolution display is the culprit for its relatively poor battery life—the XPS 13 at the top of the chart is a 1080p non-touch model, as is the Acer Swift below it. Directly comparing 3:2 resolutions with 16:9 or 16:10 resolutions is an exercise in frustration—but the Framework's display offers noticeably higher pixel density than its competitors here, and that does not come for free.
As battery tech gets better, you can replace it. And the glued-in battery in the macbook pro won't be 100% capacity after a bunch of charge/discharges.
It's a compromise in the short term maybe, but long term it's so much nicer.
I've replaced a glued in MacBook Pro battery. It isn't a big deal and very similar to the Framework, except the Framework has mechanical connections (screws and tabs). The battery replacement kit came with everything needed. It didn't come with newly additional capacity because the underlying changes in battery chemistry aren't there. The improvements in battery life mostly come from CPUs with lower TDP.
It's not just a status symbol, it's also a fantastic laptop. I honestly don't find it reasonable to recommend normal people anything other than an M1 Mac at this point.
As far as I can tell, this laptop has a 55 Wh battery. A macbook pro of the same size (13in) has a 58 Wh battery and the dell XPS 13 has a 52 Wh battery. What am I missing?
Capacity isn’t the only metric for batteries. The faster you draw down the more power converts to heat. Different battery chemistry changes that a bit, but also aggressive power management to flatten (and lower) the curve matters a great deal.
Apple nailed that during the same generation they introduced the unreplaceable battery. Better density, less packaging, and improved power management virtually doubled the run time on that laptop versus the previous. That was a huge deal at the time.
> We suspect the Framework's high-brightness, high-resolution display is the culprit for its relatively poor battery life—the XPS 13 at the top of the chart is a 1080p non-touch model, as is the Acer Swift below it.
And the XPS has an i7-1065G7 [1] vs the Framework with an i7-1185G7 [2]. So the Framework has a better screen and a better CPU. I'm not sure I agree with running that benchmark without other data alongside it like a score or the average clock rate.
For example, I put a 2nd battery in a ThinkPad once and it had the effect of locking the CPU clock to <1GHz. The battery was predicted to last much longer than normal, but it was useless as a computer.
The only laptop for which that seems to be true is the MacBook, but no x86 laptop will come close to that. From what I've seen the Framework has a mostly uninteresting battery life, outperforming some likely competitors (like Dell's XPS 13 and MS's Surface Laptop) and outperformed by others (like HP's ProBook x360 and ASUS's Zenbook 13).
Interesting. Tom's Guide says pretty much the exact opposite, with the XPS coming in at roughly 78% the battery life of the Framework.
> In our battery test, which sets the laptop’s screen brightness to 150 nits and tasks it with endlessly browsing the web via Wi-Fi, the Framework lasted 10 hours and 17 minutes. That’s better than the Dell XPS 13 (7:59)
Maybe the XPS 13 configuration was different? Or maybe the tests were different in nature? Ars used PCMark 10, which is a standard benchmark that Dell could have specifically optimized for.
The Ars review does have this to say later on:
> The Framework also manages surprisingly high battery life under Ubuntu—in our semi-scientific video playback test, Framework runs neck and neck with the outstanding Acer Swift 3 at just over five hours, with everything else (including the XPS 13, which in this case is hampered by a 4k touchscreen display) trailing well behind.
I'm impressed that they have managed to take this product to market, and I'm glad that people who value modularity will finally have a viable option.
at the same time, I personally don't see what all the fuss is about. you can upgrade both DIMMs, which is cool, but not exactly unheard of these days (I guess it's getting there in an ultraportable?). you're still stuck with DDR4, which is almost EOL, and the max capacity it entails. it's neat that you can customize your IO options, but how many people are going to do that more than once? being constrained by the chipset, it's not like you're going to be able to "upgrade" your IO in the future.
the most likely parts of a laptop to fail are the SSD and the battery, both of which are fairly easy to replace on almost all laptops. past that, you aren't really gaining that much when you're locked into whatever CPU/chipset was current when you bought the laptop.
>Newer laptops are starting to come with soldered SSDs
Which newer laptops? Other than Macs and crappy $199 Walmart grade
tablet-chromebook thingamajigs, I don't know any mainstream PC laptop that does that (thankfully).
Even super light and super slim laptops still have replaceable storage. Even niche Pocket Computers like the GPD and Valve Steam Deck still have replaceable SSDs.
If Macs are doing it, others are soon to follow. Apple has been a trend setter for years. They were belittled for getting rid of the 3.5mm jack, only for flag ship phones to begin doing so.
Soon when? Apple has been doing it for 5 years now and the rest of the industry hasn't even started.
The truth is, unlike with RAM, it's still cheaper for the other laptop manufacturers to have a single motherboard SKU which they can later plug whatever cheap COTS SSDs they can get from various sources rather than waste effort tayloring a motherboard for a specific SSD controller, specific DRAM cache chips and specific Flash chips, as that gives them way less flexibility in component sourcing during production lifecycle and more expense in board design resulting in more expensive products with no extra margins for them.
Apple can do this economically as they have a very tightly controlled supply chain with high volumes and due to the little variation in SKUs so they can just use the same SSD controller on all their products and just change the amount of Flash chips soldered on the board and call it a day.
IMO, the selling point isn't that you can carry around the ports you might potentially use and swap them out whenever you need them, it's that you can buy a machine that's tailored to your setup and peripherals.
I bought a laptop at the beginning of 2020 after the GPU on my old one fried. What I wanted was something with a Cat6 and DisplayPort built in for when I'm in my office, and multiple USB-A ports for the peripherals I use (mouse/keyboard/mic/speakers). I had to settle for one with a single extra USB-C port, an additional USB-C hub to get enough USB-A ports and a Cat6, and an adaptor for the built-in HDMI port to hook up to the DisplayPort on my monitor, which set me back a total of like $100 on top of the cost of the laptop itself. The laptop also has a headset jack and large card reader that I have yet to use, so that's just wasted space that could have potentially been something I would have actually used.
I have a MacBook Pro w/ Retina Display from Mid-2012. It cannot be fixed for a reasonable price, despite it being still mostly perfect for my daughter's school computing.
This computer definitely interests me (as someone who moved back to Ubuntu / Regolith this year)
we'll have to wait and see whether this actually happens, but if so, that would certainly invalidate my biggest criticism. if they could pull it off on a 14"-15.6" chassis with a discrete gpu, they would probably get my money.
also, pretty sure that is correct english, why the [sic]?
> also, pretty sure that is correct english, why the [sic]?
Perfectly correct English yes - I just meant that I was disagreeing with that, you're not locked to it. (I don't think it's an incorrect use of it, but thinking about it it's not a common one - can just quote and say 'that's not right' after all - so I don't know I bothered, sorry.)
> Perfectly correct English yes - I just meant that I was disagreeing with that, you're not locked to it.
fair enough :)
and I saw that guide too. my skepticism is regarding what happens when the next generation (or an AMD variant) arrives. will the new mainboards be drop-in replacements for the old? if nothing else, this would make it difficult to radically change the cooling solution, which could be a big problem for the dGPU machine I'd like to see.
maybe my initial comment was too harsh. they have delivered a fully user-repairable machine, which is a great thing. but what I want is a fully upgradable machine, in the sense of a DIY desktop build. they have made some vague promises around the latter, but I'll reserve my judgement until I see it actually happen.
To be fair to "these corporations," the modules available for the Framework are basically built-in USB-C dongles. If you really hate the look of dongles, then thats great. If you only use one thing, like HDMI, then you don't have to cart around a bunch of modules as if they are dongles.
The three internal upgrad-ables are nice if you think that things will drastically change in RAM, SSD, or Wifi before the CPU, mainboard or faster connections to faster RAM and SSD make the effect of said upgrad-ables to be gilding a turd. Otherwise periodically buy the midrange storage and allow the secondary market to absorb your environmental guilt.
Do you actually have any example of a corporation that makes laptops saying that it’s impossible to have slim laptops that are customizable? I would be very surprised if this ever happened, but I’m willing to be proven wrong.
You know, I can't think of a concrete example of that, when pressed, so it is possible this was just something repeated to me by coworkers and friends doing Apple apologia, and I just treated it as a truth. A quick Google doesn't appear to show Apple or any other corporation saying it, so I'll take the L on it.
I think my overall point still stands. I still find it irritating that, until very recently, the only way to get a nice, slim laptop was to accept that everything is hard-wired in. Framework proved that that's not correct.
Your experience matches my own. I haven't heard it from a company but there are definitely Apple zealots/shills who would say that in threads about right to repair.
Yeah, sort of this strange Mandela effect thing I guess; I have a distinct memory of reading an official statement with Apple or Samsung claiming that that was the reason, but that statement does not appear to exist, and it seems like the most likely reason is because my brain just incorrectly extrapolated that memory from stuff non-Apple-non-Samsung folks were saying.
FWIW, I also remember this claim being made, but yes, it may have just been Apple apologists in comments, or perhaps Apple wrt the iPhone battery, ages ago.
> Kyle Weins (iFixit CEO) basically claiming that's the reason
I.e. The last person who can be trusted to report on Apple’s motivations.
It’s an absurd explanation. Some obvious other factors are:
1. The idea that a modular chassis is less robust over time. Not that it can’t be made, but that if you make millions of them, vastly more of them will have problems because of all the connectors etc.
We don’t have any data on the framework. Perhaps they’ll prove this to be a misplaced fear, but it’s also possible that framework laptops in aggregate will need more repairs because of the extra complexity.
2. Limited hardware profiles are easier to support with software. If users can create limitless combinations, it becomes much harder to test. This isn’t an issue for the typical Linux user who can do their own homework and fix their own issues, but it’s a deal breaker for someone who just wants to buy a computer and get work done.
iFixit has repairability scores for products. Eg this Surface gets a 1 out of 10 because MS used adhesives among other problems. They traded off repairability for thermal, rigidity, and mechanical concerns.
Many companies do heavily promote the thinness of their device on launch. How many of them also say that it is thin and customizable? (And customisable doesn't mean choosing between 8 gb of soldered ram vs 16 gb of soldered ram). There's your answer.
Unfortunately currently framework says it is impossible to have a slim, tiny , customizable laptop with a trackpoint option (due to the keyboard height). Hopefully we will overcome this one too and I would be all in...
This is the barrier for me too. I'm writing this on a 4-year-old Thinkpad. (The "25th anniversary edition", which has my favorite keyboard.) If somebody figures that out, I'm happy to switch, as my feelings on the Thinkpad line are the same as Doctorow's: formerly great, now sadly declining.
I’ve never understood the trackpoint use case, the (admittedly few) computers I’ve had with it, I just felt it a nuisance in the middle of the keyboard.
To the same goes for the trackpad for me. I am always disabling them to avoid accidental contact. I guess this is why we need more customizable devices.
According to Clayton Christensen, there's a cycle between integrated and modular, as consumer perferences change. At first performance is inadequate, but once it is good enough, people base their buying decisions on other things like customization.
e.g. By this theory, android would become more popular than iphone.
EDIT yes, which happened, favouring the theory; despite iphone still leading performance, due to integration even to cpu and gpu.
Besides planned obsolescence and other malicious intentions, there are also economies of scale to consider: if making a non modular/repairable laptop cost to a producer just one less buck, that's a lot of money when multiplied by the huge number they sell.
That said, I love the concept and plan to buy one next year, when they hopefully will have means to sell in the EU without outrageous shipping+import duties.
I love the Framework idea, and believe in repairability. But I’ll be interested to see what Framework does when they have the (enviable) challenge of manufacturing, distributing, and supporting half a billion of them.
HP is a notable exception to this trend, they still make multiple ranges of slim, customizable laptops (at least non-touchscreen models). I oversee IT for an org of ~150 people and have swapped out RAM and M.2 SSDs on multiple recent HP ProBooks, EliteBooks, and a ZBook in the last few weeks with just a Phillips screwdriver and a spudger.
Nothing epoxied shut or soldered in place, and the metal cases on recent generations of these HP models are sturdier than the older plastic. Our lead tech has replaced HP laptop batteries, keyboards and displays when needed with no issues. HP is also one of the few brands with backlit keyboards standard on most laptops, even down to the lower-end models I've encountered since 2018.
My Dell laptop just cross three years in June and the extended warrantee also got expired. The battery has been deteriorating with only a few mins of backup left. Called up the customer care and they asked to instead contact nearby service center. Tried with multiple in Delhi NCR and no one seem to have a battery – one of them said that no battery is available right now (God knows why?)
Finally, somehow got one via Amazon supplied from a state 1600 KMs away from here for about $80 in a week time. It could very well be expensive than the one gotten from the service center but, was left with no option.
Why should we believe anything any for-profit company says, without verifying (whenever possible)? Drug companies lie all the time, about having to price their drugs absurdly high. Facebook lies all the time about not being able to fact check, without even attempting to try seriously. And on and on.
The insane thing is not that companies lie. It is that the general public has either given up or duped into thinking these companies cannot possible lie. We have created an economic system where profit trumps everything else.
> After seeing the framework, I'm more than a little annoyed that I fell for this.
Me too. An I'm annoyed I fell for the lie that board level repair is impossible. What the manufacturers really should be saying is "it's impossible for us" because it's obviously possible for 3rd parties to do it and make a business out of it.
I'm willing to pay +$100 for something that's assembled with screws instead of glues.
I wonder if the slowdown in Moore's law had something to do with it? I mean back in the day the performance gap between a new processor and a 5-10 year old one was so substantial it was hardly worth your while
It seems more likely that tech has advanced enough for this, rather than there being some greedy phenomenon where it just so happened that nobody thought to do better before framework.
The Framework is larger and weighs more than contemporary machines that have larger displays (e.g. ThinkPad X1 Carbon 9th generation), and it has worse performance and shorter battery life because soldered-in RAM isn't some kind of scam, it's actually much better.
In short, it was not a lie that you get smaller, lighter, and better laptops with integration. You do, in fact, get all of those things.
The Framework laptop is 1mm thicker and 200 grams heavier than the 9th gen Carbon. We've gone long past the point of diminishing returns when it comes to size/weight vs repairability trade offs.
Is that a property of the components being soldered in, or just a property of the fact that Framework cannot get access to the highest quality components on the market?
Genuine question, I know very little about electrical components.
With RAM, the problem is more that high capacity LPDDR4 modules simply aren't available on SODIMMs.
However this is only because manufacturers don't make them. If Apple asked Micron or Samsung for them, I'm sure it would happen.
A better argument for non-replaceable RAM can be found in the Apple Silicon chips. Building the memory into the SoC provides very tangible performance and efficiency benefits.
>With RAM, the problem is more that high capacity LPDDR4 modules simply aren't available on SODIMMs.
And I don't think they ever will be. From the little bit that I've read, the higher voltage that SODIMMs have to use has to do with noise in transmission. LPDDR4s have been connection through the direct solder, so are able to use lower voltages.
I'm not an electrical engineer but I have a hard time believing we can't design a socket that provides a connection as stable and free from interference as a solder joint. It could mean making a PGA or LGA socket similar to what we use for CPUs, but it should still be perfectly doable.
the mounting hardware needed for replaceable dimms inherently takes more space on and above the board. the solder approach also gives more flexibility for board layout, since you don't have to reserve space for the exact size and shape of a standard module. see a teardown of the new blade 14 to see how this can be beneficial.
there is an inherent tradeoff between size, battery life, and modularity. if you can make a modular laptop with good specs and battery life, a competitor will always be able to offer the same thing in a smaller chassis or with a bigger battery.
They have to use DDR4-3200 to be able to put the RAM on a stick. Integrated systems can use LPDDR4x-4267. You can't put that on a stick. It's a trade-off. It turns out it takes extra power to drive high-speed signals across long traces with connectors.
I'm fairly sure the power advantage comes from VDDQ being much lower: .6V for LPDDR4x and 1.2V for DDR4.
LPDDR4x is or at least can be 64 bits wide, just like DDR4.
Judging by reviews, the Framework loses 10% of CPU+GPU performance versus reference designs. That could be due to their memory subsystem or thermal design, or both. Ars Technica said the battery life was "mediocre" but I would have gone with "terrible". Compared to the Dell XPS 13 the Framework has only 60% the life.
After seeing the framework, I'm more than a little annoyed that I fell for this. They proved you can have a slim, clean laptop that's somewhat modular, and more impressively, with something like 1% of Apple's budget to do it. Had I known about it, I probably wouldn't have paid an arm and a leg for a maxed-out Macbook Pro a year ago. MacOS is nice, probably my favorite consumer operating system currently available, but Apple's walled garden approach is beyond annoying.