> The crux of the matter is that even if one values upgradability and repairability, neither is a frequent need for practically anybody.
Judging reparability and serviceability the same way as you do with other features is absurd, to put it charitably! It is one feature that you rarely use, but brings you huge value when you do use it. You don't realize how much savings we used to extract by progressively upgrading the same desktop PC for two to three generations instead of throwing away the whole PC and buying a new one each time. This dismissal of the feature is bizarrely shortsighted.
> The reality may be that wanting a laptop that's well rounded and competent across the board AND repairable+upgradable is akin to having your cake and eating it too, but that doesn't stop people from wanting it anyway.
I talked about this just two days ago. Unlike how you project it, that ideal is entirely feasible if there was enough investment and a large enough market. Instead, OEMs inflict the opposite on the consumers who take it all in without pushing back. These companies choose and spread suboptimal designs that suit their interests and then insist that it is the only viable way forward. It's absurd that consumers also repeat that falsehood.
> You don't realize how much savings we used to extract by progressively upgrading the same desktop PC for two to three generations instead of throwing away the whole PC and buying a new one each time. This dismissal of the feature is bizarrely shortsighted.
The main things I keep long term are the drives and power supply, and those can be kept on most laptops too.
In the medium term I get a lot of use out of separately upgrading CPU and GPU, but most frameworks can't do that. The 16 gets half a point in that category because the options are still very limited.
A Framework lets me keep the same screen which is cool. And it lets me keep the same chassis which is not as beneficial if it's not a particularly good chassis.
If I'm generous, the extra flexibility in a Framework would save me $200 every 5-8 years. Which leaves me in the hole, further if I'm less generous.
I hope they reach a scale where they can price things better, and I'm willing to pay some extra for what they do, but not as much as they currently charge. Looking at Framework's site I can get the same specs as the author for $1800. Lenovo offers a model with a worse screen but otherwise the same specs for $600. Gigabyte has a fully matching model plus bonus GPU for $1150, and for half of November it was on sale for $1000. And if you want an RTX 5070 then Framework is $2500 and Gigabyte is $1350.
> If I'm generous, the extra flexibility in a Framework would save me $200 every 5-8 years. Which leaves me in the hole, further if I'm less generous.
I think this statement is heavily underestimating the value of a repairable /user serviceable computer.
The value proposition of user serviceable equipment is the same as the value proposition for open source for software. It gives you the FREEDOM and the ABILITY to make the changes you want to make IF you want to make them.
But as it is with open source software, most users are never going to be directly editing the code for postgres, Linux, or any of the other 1000s of open source software that they use on a daily basis - but IF they choose to do so, they can.
> The value proposition of user serviceable equipment is the same as the value proposition for open source for software. It gives you the FREEDOM and the ABILITY to make the changes you want to make IF you want to make them.
This is true to an extent, but I think that's greatly overselling it when phrased that way.
90% of my customization is either during the initial purchase, or it's a RAM/drive upgrade, and I don't need Framework for that. It's only a small portion of customization I lose out on. And in some ways I actually have more ability to customize outside of Framework, for example they only offer two GPU models.
That is my point. Most users - such as yourself, will not make use of the freedom a Framework device provides but there are others who will directly benefit from it. And that freedom is essential.
To use a vehicle analogy - it is the same as getting a car which has parts you can opt to change/replace. Most people may not even be able to do an oil change but this "feature" is nonetheless a VERY important one to have.
My point was that even for people that benefit, the benefit is greatly reduced.
Let's dig in to why it's useful to be able to replace parts on a car. If we analogize the extra flexibility of the Framework to being able to replace all these parts in the engine bay, that sounds really cool, until you realize there are no third party options for the core components and Framework only makes a couple versions. It's still useful in a few circumstances, but it's not this massive unlock of freedom. You can't have a fully customized engine, and the best way to get an engine tailored to your tastes is to abandon the weak after-the-fact customization and go find something that you like from the start.
Even to a user that really values freedom, Framework doesn't properly deliver at this point in time. The Framework freedom is so restricted that in most ways you get more freedom by considering all the non-soldered-RAM laptops from other brands as valid options too.
Edit: And I don't mean this as an indictment of their small company, they're trying, but right now the impact is limited in many ways.
> A Framework lets me keep the same screen which is cool
Probably the last thing I'd want to keep. Screen technology still moves forward at a decent pace. Screens are disposable, backlights fade over time, pixels get stuck, screen burn-in.
The only universal thing I can think of about machines I've upgraded over the years (not laptops, of course) are cases, power supplies, CPU coolers, and as long as the form factor hasn't changed/there hasn't been significant progress, HDD.
Everything else goes with the system. New CPU meant new socket, which also meant new RAM. Need to get rid of that old video card, of course.
I think a major clarification is in order here. I'm not talking about just the framework here. If anything, the problems with framework is the direct result of the absolutely stupid industry-wide product design culture and market tastes. You can see all the major open-ish hardware designers grappling with similar issues - pinephone, System76, Librem... I will explain later why it is so. But here is the point - we need a major shift in both the product design culture and the (non-existent) consumer culture.
Back in the days of modular desktop PCs (which is still alive, but barely holding on and slowly fading away) about a couple of decades ago, there would have been immediate and sharp backlash if any hardware manufacturer pulled the tricks that they do today - soldered-on RAM modules, thermoplastic glue instead of screws, riveted keyboards, irreplaceable ICs that are paired using crypto, permanently locked firmware, etc. That would have shook their sales enough for them to care. Right now, these 'features' lead to short-life hardware (because any broken parts mean everything has to be thrown out), landfills full of e-waste, frequent new purchases, etc. It does nothing good for anyone or the ecosystem, except filling the pockets of trillion dollar MNCs.
The advantage of such consumer pressure is that you'd have a vibrant spare parts market with much more choices. Many people here are complaining about how poor the spare parts market is. Had the consumer choice been more on the side of modularity and reusability, that problem wouldn't have even arisen. It wouldn't be just framework who manufactures such things. In fact, you wouldn't even be able to decide the brand name of the laptop as a whole. Another point is that you're still thinking about laptops as a unit, instead of as a collection of parts. And that would be the case if the industry spent more resources and effort into it. It doesn't have to be bulky as you imagine either. Hardware interfaces, housing and fasteners would have evolved to a more compact, universal and standard form, much like how a dozen different ports were replaced by USB. Right now, you're thinking about how you can transplant parts from your old laptop to the new one. Instead, you could swap parts of a laptop one at a time. Currently, the CPU and GPU cannot be swapped like in a desktop PC. You have to make do with replacing the whole motherboard now. But has anybody demanded replaceable CPUs and GPUs for these? Why are those precluded?
Now about why framework, System76, Librem, Pinephone, etc have problems making such devices. The choices they get is abysmally small. The OEMs and component manufacturers (mostly from China) have created this supply-chain system where they involve in huge-scale exclusive contracts. It's simply too hard to get a fully compatible chipset without signing an NDA that effectively ruins your chances at making open or modular hardware. Those companies are doing an impressive job at making these hardware with what they have.
You may want to dismiss me as too idealistic and dreaming about what could be, instead of dealing with what it is now. But let me point out why we never catch a break. The tech community takes an obstinate and imprudent 'all or nothing' approach to everything. 'Framework is not good because it's too costly, modules are not good enough, GPU cannot be replaced, yada, yada'. Nobody is willing to settle for anything less than perfect. But you need to realize that you are not in the bargaining position here - you don't hold the cards. Your choices are dictated by someone else who is more resourceful and patient in making short-term compromises and playing the long game of shaping the market and making insane profits at the end. The only way to get your way is for everyone to unite and show even more resolve and patience in demanding what you want. That means putting up with some inconveniences for now. But everyone will be rewarded at the end with the perfection you demand.
>about a couple of decades ago, there would have been immediate and sharp backlash if any hardware manufacturer pulled the tricks that they do today - soldered-on RAM modules, thermoplastic glue instead of screws, riveted keyboards, irreplaceable ICs...
That's when this trend started, with Apple's Macbook Pro leading the way, winding up one of the best-selling consumer laptop brands by targeting incoming college freshmen and their grandparents, focusing on cosmetic appeal over dollar cost for performance.
Most buyers don't even know what CPU model their laptop contains, let alone understand the difference between faster or slower processors from different generations. It will always be a tiny segment of the market that appreciates the value of Framework's features.
Apple did not start anything.
PCs are the odd ones, all other 8 and 16 bit home computers were vertically integrated, most expansions were done via external buses connected into one of the sides, usually the back or right side.
With the race for thin margins at any cost, if anything thanks to Apple, is that OEMs realised going back to Spectrum, C64, Amiga, Atari ST kind of hardware designs payed off in their bank accounts.
My point was that soldered RAM and lack of upgradeable components didn't inspire much of a backlash back then. It led to Apple dominating the higher end of the consumer laptop market.
Which was already the way on 8 and 16 bit home computers, for the most part if you wanted an upgrade you would buy the newer model.
The exception being PC clones.
Apple also drove the quest for extreme thinness. Even Lenovo Thinkpad T keyboards are terrible now due to it.
I really want to love the MTNU reform with its Kailh Choc White switches. I wish like there was a laptop that actually had a mechanical keyboard.
That's why I've been thinking of paring my desktop-replacement 16" laptop with a Pocket Reform or something like that.
Oh yeah I didn't know that one. I do know Logitech has some ultra-thin ones too though. Very good keyboards too. They'd do nice in a laptop as well.
I'd very gladly sacrifice thinness for a decent keyboard. The Thinkpads had an OK compromise for a while but since the Thinkpad T14s gen2 or so they have been horrible as well. My old T490s was still serviceable.
One space that I don't think I've seen explored is building a laptop around a tiny, ultra-low-power passively cooled SoC board that can easily fit beside the keyboard instead of under it in a 12"-16" chassis and saves space that'd otherwise need to be dedicated to cooling. That'd buy a substantial amount of Z-budget for a quality keyboard without blowing up chassis thickness.
Naturally this laptop wouldn't be suited for some types of work due to lack of horsepower, but there's always tradeoffs somewhere.
We're kinda there already. Most recent laptops I've seen have a tiny motherboard not even taking up the whole width of the device. Under the keyboard there's usually the battery.
Don't forget a significant part of the weight has to be towards the front edge so you can tilt the screen back without flipping the whole laptop. Some of my cheaper atom based laptops (with tiny motherboard and batteries) even have a metal bar in there for that purpose.
Right, but my idea was to do something like shove the mainboard up into the bezel above the keyboard and battery into the palm rest, with nothing sitting under the keyboard except maybe ribbon cables. That’d get you a laptop with a thickness of under an inch that still has a keyboard that’s not compromised and keeps weight shifted to the front. It’d simplify repairs to some degree too since there’d be very little stacking.
You are just repeating the same unpopular debunked arguments that the industry makes out of vacuum. Why does anybody have to know the internals of any system to get the advantages of reparability and serviceability? What were independent service personnel for? Did everyone know how to open and repair watches, cars, refrigerators, etc? Did that stop them from getting the benefit?
I always enjoy how Thinkpad bros have been badmouthing MacBooks for two decades, when those have had the best battery life, screen, hinge, case, bluetooth, fan noise and other amenities during all of that time. They were the first to have WiFi.
Apple figured out pretty soon that a laptop doesn't need to be a dragster or M1 Abrams, it needs to be a Volvo.
> soldered-on RAM modules
That can have significant performance advantages, though. Which might be hard to overcome due to physics
If you're gaining advantage by changing RAM from sockets to soldered joints, it's probably time to change the system design altogether. It's better to put the DRAM on the same IC/SoC as the processor - on a dedicated die if necessary. Any additional memory requirement can be added as socket based RAM modules. They sure will be slower. But they can be treated as another memory layer, kind of like the optane memory (without persistence) or NUMA. You'd still get significant speed up because a portion of the DRAM is colocated with the CPU now.
This also adds to the core philosophy that I'm trying to push. Modularity and serviceability doesn't necessarily mean sacrificing performance, compactness or security. That's a myth that's too prevalent in the industry.
There is a new system design, it's called LPCAMM. And framework would have used it in the desktop but those CPUs have some flaw that make them not compatible with full speed LPCAMM.
Moving the memory even closer doesn't have all that much advantage. And having super close RAM and sockets is a waste of die space on all those I/O channels. One or other can fit all the needs of any particular CPU.
Worth noting that even Framework's own desktop has soldered-on RAM, for exactly this reason
And that was even after constructive cooperation with amd. Now think about the more common, hostile, interaction many suppliers provide.
It's also worth noting the CAMM2 ram gets about the same performance.
Framework has stated that it asked AMD if there were any way to make the RAM on Ryzen AI Max APUs (like used in the Framework Desktop) socketed, and AMD said no due to the stability hit that’d entail — the physical distance from the CPU that’d be required with RAM sockets reduces signal integrity too much for it to function.
Which is weird. The entire point of [LP]CAMM[2] is to be able to make that work.
The Framework desktop clocks the memory at 8000MHz. That's well within the limits of the interface. Something is flawed or omitted in those CPUs if they can't handle it.
Lamenting market taste and the resulting mass market designs is basically yelling at clouds.
Simple fact is that most people have different priorities than the “make everything upgradable” crowd would like. That’s not going to change. Why would 90% of the market “unite” with 10% who want a totally different set of tradeoffs?
It’s like asking that all car buyers unite and demand manual transmissions in every car. I love manual cars, but I recognize most people do not want that for most of their driving. So why would the majority demand this feature that they don’t actually want, and which would not be a better experience for most?
I was expecting this reply here. But it's still the same old excuse to do nothing. It's as if we deserve nothing better than what the companies impose upon us. That's such a defeatist stance.
I don't think anyone is concerned what anyone deserves in terms of hardware.
Different companies "impose" different tradeoffs upon us. Pick what you like, but expect to pay a premium for a less popular choice.
> Different companies "impose" different tradeoffs upon us.
The "different tradeoffs" those companies offer us are a lie. There are other tradeoffs they won't ever explore. But I won't explain it anymore because I did that practically in every single comment of mine in this thread. Just ignoring it and repeating this trope is hardly a counterargument.
> Pick what you like, but expect to pay a premium for a less popular choice.
The argument about choices is also a lie. They don't exist because the market is a heavily captured and manipulated one. You might as well wait for Santa Claus to deliver it instead. This is again something that's repeatedly ignored. We're just arguing in cycles here.
There are a lot of missing choices in modular, serviceable and repairable market - which is why you see so many little complaints in this thread about a company that's sincerely attempting to offer and improve modular options. It's not that there's no demand for it. But the majority consumers just de-incentivices such products out of the market by following the hype and choosing the harmful options.
At least, the majority of the consumers can be forgiven for their ignorance about those tradeoffs. But that's something that the knowledgeable and expert population can solve. The others respect their opinion. But instead of pushing for the common good, they consistently show apathy. It really isn't that big of a deal. The experts have to be more honest and vocal about their own specialities, and the situation will gradually improve. People have rallied and achieved much harder goals.
But the really frustrating aspect is that some people actively sabotage the commons. At this point, I don't believe that the tech influencers are being honest about the interests they serve. And equally bad are the misguided defeatist arguments raised against advocacy for the commons. I really don't understand the motivation behind such excessively cynical takes.
And yet, you completely ignore the possibility that someone could value portability, lightness or even looks of the device far above any points you hold very dear.
I get it, all that you say I would agree on regarding my stationary hardware.
On the go, I have very different demands. And the hardware sellers are not stupid, they know what sells.
[dead]
> It’s like asking that all car buyers unite and demand manual transmissions in every car. I love manual cars, but I recognize most people do not want that for most of their driving. So why would the majority demand this feature that they don’t actually want, and which would not be a better experience for most?
Um that's like the status quo in Europe lol. We all drive manual here. it's not that unlikely. Automatics are the exception here (and you must learn to drive manual otherwise you get a restricted license)
Driving it is different from demanding it. What percent of people in Europe would pay more for manual?
> I talked about this just two days ago. Unlike how you project it, that ideal is entirely feasible if there was enough investment and a large enough market. Instead, OEMs inflict the opposite on the consumers who take it all in without pushing back. These companies choose and spread suboptimal designs that suit their interests and then insist that it is the only viable way forward. It's absurd that consumers also repeat that falsehood.
Talk is cheap. Reality is a better indicator of what is and isn’t feasible, and it’s not like there haven’t been many attempts towards that ideal, but for whatever reason, Apple’s model is the desirable one, for most.
I've seen it from Netflix, Steam, and several others. People simply love having all their eggs in one basket, and will stubbornly support it long past the state it starts to exploit them. They support security over freedom every time, consistently.
It's a bit crude, but it's also why I'm not surprised AI is catching on so quickly. People will happily outsource their ability to "think" if the product is convincing enough to them. We already spent the last decade or 2 trying to maximize the dopamine hits from social media. Now there's a tech that can (pretend to) understand your individualized needs? Ready to answer to your Beck and call and never makes you feel bad?
Not as cool as thr VR pod dystopia, but I guess I overestimated how much stimulation humanity needed to reject itself.
> People simply love having all their eggs in one basket
It's more accurate to say that people don't like having twelve different interfaces that all do the same thing.
The proper way to do this is, of course, to have a single interface (i.e. a user agent) that interfaces with multiple services using a standard protocol. But every proprietary service wants you to use their app, and that's the thing people hate.
But the services are being dumb, because everyone except for the largest incumbent is better off to give the people what they want. The one that wins is the one with the largest network effect, which means you're either the biggest already or you're better off to implement a standard along with everyone else who isn't the biggest so that in combination you have the biggest network, since otherwise you won't and then you lose.
Yeah, thars a more generous way to put it. People are fine with the illusion of one basket. Thars pretty much how any large website works.
The ideal would be for users to choose their front end and have backends hook into it via protocols. Aka RSS feeds or Email (to some extent). But the allure of being vertically integrated is too great, and users will rarely question it.
>But the services are being dumb, because everyone except for the largest incumbent is better off to give the people what they want.
Yup, agreed. At this point, it's really an issue regulation can fix. Before it's too late.
Even more unimaginative dismissals are not what I wish to debate. I have already explained why this argument is disingenuous at best. Apple's model isn't the best. It just appears so because these companies never put significant effort into better alternatives and the consumers never demanded it. I keep trying to point this out - this is a repeated misdirection tactic employed by these companies and their fans.
I don't think this was understood charitably. The point of the parent is that in practice, when it comes time to update one part, you'll also want to update all or most of the others. So, in practice, you will not see any of these savings.
The potential savings may be significant, but for most people, it may be the case that the actual savings are unlikely. A modular, upgradable laptop may be a niche product for people who want to upgrade each part more frequently, not less.
> I don't think this was understood charitably. The point of the parent is that in practice, when it comes time to update one part, you'll also want to update all or most of the others. So, in practice, you will not see any of these savings.
It's frustrating to have to repeat the same point again and again. That is not correct at all. I have exercised it in practice. What you refer to as in practice are the deliberately crippled and limited options that are available in the market today.
> The potential savings may be significant, but for most people, it may be the case that the actual savings are unlikely. A modular, upgradable laptop may be a niche product for people who want to upgrade each part more frequently, not less.
Completely disagree. That's not what's seen in practice.
> You don't realize how much savings we used to extract by progressively upgrading the same desktop PC for two to three generations instead of throwing away the whole PC and buying a new one each time
Do you actually realise any savings doing that? Pretty sure I never have.
Typically by the time I get around to upgrading, they've changed both the CPU socket and the RAM, so I need a whole new motherboard. And I certainly don't trust a 5-year-old PSU to run a higher-watt load at that point. So most of the time all I'm reusing is the case and maybe a couple of auxiliary SSDs (which aren't a major part of the cost)...
Aren't part of the cost Yet :) actually upgradeable components were priority when motherboards and CPUs were too expensive to upgrade, it was ram ssds and memory that were changed out...
Soon, now actually, it is the inverse. Ram, ssds, high speed network, consumer GPUs, and anything else that needs a modest amount of DRAM.
AMD sockets last nearly a decade, and power supplies come with up to 13-year (or longer) warranties. It's just that it can be difficult to stay the course for the sheer amount of time it would take for you to realize those savings.
> power supplies come with up to 13-year (or longer) warranties
Unfortunately, those warranties don't tend to cover the rest of your components, if the PSU happens to take out a motherboard or GPU as it dies, you are up the proverbial creek.
Having had a couple of older PSUs die spectacularly, I'm not risking re-using a ~$100 component, on the off-chance it fries ~$500 of brand new motherboard/GPU/etc post-upgrade.
Why do people think newer components are more reliable? Is it the same thinking that says newer cars are more reliable? Newer computers? (The answer to all is no.)
Clean the dust out of your PC once a year. It'll last longer than it has any right to.
> Why do people think newer components are more reliable? Is it the same thinking that says newer cars are more reliable?
I'm not making any statement about newer models being more reliable, I'm saying that electronic components age, and hence the risk of failure goes up over time.
If you buy the exact same model of power supply, but one that is manufactured 5 years later, it will (statistically) be more reliable than the unit that's already been in use for 5 years.
Isn’t “reuse the PSU” kind of a tempting trap? I though it was—a cheap part that can take down the rest of your expensive system. I though the advice was to get a new one with each build…
A quality PSU can often last 10 years and multiple builds. Quality in this case just means "has things like over voltage protection, proper wiring included, decent caps, and decent voltage regulation" not "was really expensive". E.g. that $140 85 W Seasonic Focus tier is quality in this regard, the $80 no-name 850 W PSU is what people warn about, and the $400 Seasonic Prime titanium rated PSU is mostly for those scrutinizing VRM designs or wattage limits on the cables to the GPU for their overclock goals.
It's common to upgrade your PSU anyways though as it seems like parts wattages only go up over the years (particularly for the +12v rails) or one may want to cycle out the old system completely for reuse/resale. Generic advice (since most people buy cheapo no name PSUs and upgrade rarely) might be to say to replace just to be on the good side of every situation... but if you're one that knows you got a quality PSU or likes to upgrade your build every other CPU generation, then swapping out the PSU every time is likely a waste.
If the PSU is that crappy, then yes. But these things are supposed to come with over voltage protection, current limiters, resettable fuses etc at the output. Even bad ones are not supposed to cascade their failure to the rest of the system.
But let's think of a better option. What if all spare parts came with an expiry date and a service schedule? On top of giving us a baseline to retire the part, the manufacturer will also be forced to divulge an indirect quality score (useful lifetime) and compete with others on it. If this sounds too fantastic, we sort of had this in operation half a century ago. I don't think a lot of people remember that era.
Oh neat, I was not aware. In the 70’s then, computer parts came with an expiration date? I wonder why they stopped, was it a tradition inherited from car, radio, or appliance parts, or something, where the idea of a wear-part is (or at least was) somewhat more developed?
I've been on the same PSU for I think 13 years now, its currently running my Ryzen 7 3700x and RTX4070 desktop. I suppose if its not a great quality PSU or its already suspected of causing issues then replacing is a good idea.