I want Framework to succeed, but the author's objection isn't unreasonable:
> For a premium price I expect a premium laptop, but the Framework 16 feels more like a €1200-€1500 laptop at best... two thousand Euros for this kind of laptop is just absurd
For most people the long-term total cost of ownership is going to be a major factor when they consider a more repairable laptop. Sure, generating less e-waste is nice, but saving money is probably the main point. What the author is asserting here is that to get the repairable laptop you need to spend 50% more for the same specs! As well as accept that the form factor is bulkier etc. At a 50% premium you do have to question whether you're going to save a meaningful amount of money in the long run.
For me I probably would - I find uses for machines that are a decade old and the repurposability of Framework components is pretty interesting. But interest in this level of reusability is a pretty niche market.
I think the Framework 16 is too expensive. They can access a niche market at these price points but to get bigger they will need to find a way to deal with the cost issue. PC World's review of the Framework 13 this year was: "A steep price for a compelling upgrade."
>But interest in this level of reusability is a pretty niche market.
We're getting to a point where some people don't even have a laoptop in their household. I think "serving a niche", especially one willing to pay 1000+ for tech, isn't a bad thing here. The tech required for browsing internet and streaming videos doesn't need to spend more than $500, or even get a windows/mac.Chromebooks will happily cut into that entry level market.
This is all before mentioning how memory prices will only make the problem worse for all consumer electronics.
If you want user serviceable equipment - example: phones, computers, cars, bikes, washing machines etc, you will have to deal with the issues that come with it - the same as the inconveniences that come with user serviceable software AKA open source software.
The reason being that a device which has been tested to work with only a fixed set of parts will likely have more of the issues ironed out in comparison to a device which has to work with a much wider range of devices.
You may not get the same form factors because user serviceable equipment will tend to be bulkier - for instance, you may not be able to get ultra thin laptops, phones etc.
However, these inconveniences are worth it because the alternative is that we will find ourselves in a place where the equipment becomes more and more adversarial to consumers.
Maybe the feeling of saving money, but any TCO calculation isn't going to land on the side of upgradability or repairability.