1. Upgrading is cheaper than a whole new system. This saves consumers money. Modern laptops increasingly solder parts down, making upgrades nigh-impossible (I've tried multiple times).
Most tech companies have trade-in programs, but with dismal exhange rates. This gives the user more options and control over their hardware.
2. Countering planned obsolence and expensive repair costs associated with modern products.
3. Enabling upcycling, repurposing, and reducing ewaste. There are a fair number of environmentally conscious people in tech and tech-adjacent industries.
I would say there is one more problem it can solve, though less related to sustainability: Building up a modular system may make it easier to more offer customers a device close to their ideal configuration with a limited number of SKUs.
I guess what I'm trying to say is I don't think that's a real consumer problem (particularly for the space they're in, which is portable laptops). Being reusable is a solution, and in this case it doesn't seem to be solving a real world problem. Usually people want their desktop computers to be more powerful than their laptops, and have dedicated graphics. This gives people a desktop computer which is older and less powerful than their laptop, and barring niche use cases (like a home server) isn't solving a consumer problem.
I mean, consider that Framework aren't even the people offering this product, it's Cooler Master. The fact that a third-party company has decided to offer this accessory probably validates somewhat that they think there's a market. It also looks like it's quite inexpensive to manufacture, being mostly or entirely injection-molded plastic, so I don't think they need to sell very many units of this thing for it to work out. What's the downside of having the option for the niche market that does exist?
I would guess not that many buyers of this case would be people upgrading their laptops anyway. It's more appealing to me as a nice way to encase a Framework motherboard I bought used, which are already starting to turn up on eBay at decent prices and will probably become more common. This could become a very compelling alternative to a new single-board computer or small-form-factor PC, especially since it's hard to get x86 SBCs or really any architecture at that performance level.
One bit of consumer value there on the firsthand market is the ability to readily sell your old motherboard. The easy reusability of Framework motherboards will probably allow them to fetch higher prices than working motherboards for other laptops where the market is limited to repairs.
Finally, just buying a new Framework motherboard (it's easy to buy them bare, not in a laptop) and putting it in one of these cases would get you a pretty top-of-the-line SFF PC at prices similar to a bit better than options from Dell, Lenovo, etc. From the photos it looks like this case can go on a VESA mount, and it'll be appreciably thinner than most SFF PCs. Could be a pretty appealing new PC option for situations like wall-mount displays running relatively intensive software... museum kiosks, that kind of thing. I used to work in that space and it can be a frustration to find good hardware options.
Reducing e-waste is absolutely a consumer problem. Ignoring the problem is popular with manufacturers and hence is the default for consumers, but doesn't mean it's not an issue.
The desktop computer you get can either become your own desktop computer, your partner's or your child's new desktop computer, it can become your parent's new computer if the one they have is aging. It can become a homeserver or a low-spec game console (SteamOS, or emulation stuff).
If you don't do any sort of 3D-heavy stuff, then the powerful CPU and iGPU you get is PLENTY of power.
I think simply offering it as an option is already a huge step in the right direction.
I don't own a Framework, so I wouldn't be repurposing an old mainboard, but I would be more than willing to buy one secondhand to replace my media PC with a unit I can literally tape to my TV with 3M strips.
It would work as computers in the third-world, or as first PCs for children, etc.
1. have you ever bought a used laptop, 2. have you ever upgraded a laptop you own, 3. have you ever kept using a device until some EOL event forced you to replace it
What I described was my computer setup. I have a laptop which I use for minor projects, and a desktop for training models (and video games). Like the Framework laptop, my laptop was designed to be thin and doesn't have a dedicated graphics card. My desktop receives regular upgrades, my laptop goes about 4-5 years by which point I want a new one anyways (usually the battery is dying and the cpu is starting to show its age).
Most importantly however I would never use a desktop that's worse than my laptop, because if that were the case I'd just plug my laptop into my monitor instead of using a desktop (and I assume this is the case with most consumers).
> Enabling upcycling, repurposing, and reducing ewaste. There are a fair number of environmentally conscious people in tech and tech-adjacent industries.
I'm kind of torn by this. On the one hand, I like keeping old tech around. On the other, isn't this wasting energy on less efficient CPUs?
Isn't it worse for the environment to run old, inefficient CPUs?
Yes, it is less efficient. However the numbers are rather small:
Most modern laptop processors, including the ones on the Framework, have a TDP of 5-45 watts. Framework chargers are rated for 60 watts.
Your response also assumes a more efficient alternative is available. I work as a professor at a community college. I fix old laptops and give them to students who have no means to afford a computer. For many, that upcycled gift has gotten them through their bachelors degree.
Sadly, no this is done out of my salary. I've lobbied my college repeatedly, but there are a lot of restrictions (read: next-to-impossible) in using state and federal funds for private equipment. Private funds that you can do whatever you want with are hard to come by at community colleges. It is also illegal for the school to sell me old (yet perfectly functional) computers to refurb for student use. They must be inventoried by the state, after which they are mothballed into storage, or destroyed/landfilled.
Especially for laptop CPUs. They’re usually tuned (underclocked) to use a tiny amount of power. Because power consumption and performance are non-linear, even old laptop CPUs are usually much more energy efficient than modern desktops.
You can underclock a lot of modern desktop CPUs to be more energy efficient too (eg Eco Mode). But almost nobody bothers to actually do that.
I recently did some minor testing of Eco Mode on my AMD build. I saw zero impact to single threaded workloads and a ~3% drop in performance for multithreaded. Which is a trade-off I will happily take.
>Upgrading is cheaper than a whole new system. This saves consumers money. Modern laptops increasingly solder parts down, making upgrades nigh-impossible (I've tried multiple times).
A MacBook Air can easily last 5 years+. I've had mine for 10 years. Will the average Framework laptop last as long as the average MacBook?
>Countering planned obsolence and expensive repair costs associated with modern products.
Macbooks receive updates for 5+ years usually. Even after that, it's perfectly usable. I highly doubt that the hardware inside Framework will be supported for as long as Macbooks.
>Enabling upcycling, repurposing, and reducing ewaste. There are a fair number of environmentally conscious people in tech and tech-adjacent industries.
Upgrading parts cause e-waste, especially if the chips aren't generally as good as Apple Silicon so you have to upgrade more often. If you trade in or recycle your laptop with Apple, they should be able to do a better job of recycling than your average Framework user.
To me, the main selling point of Framework is that geeks can upgrade the CPU/GPU every year or once a year because they always want the fastest. The fact that Framework markets this as "environmentally friendly" is just a way to make them feel better about constantly upgrading. You can't convince me that the average Framework laptop is more environmentally friendly than a Macbook Air over its lifetime.
> A MacBook Air can easily last 5 years+. I've had mine for 10 years. Will the average Framework laptop last as long as the average MacBook?
I don't see why not. My old thinkpad is still perfectly usable 8 years after I bought it (used, already 5 years old). All I had to do was put more RAM in it and replace the hard drive with an SSD. The display is starting to go, although I could get a replacement for $40. I also replaced the battery awhile back for less than $100. This thing will easily last another 5 years, probably more (after which I'll probably repurpose it as a pi-hole or print server or something).
> Macbooks receive updates for 5+ years usually. Even after that, it's perfectly usable. I highly doubt that the hardware inside Framework will be supported for as long as Macbooks.
It's running Linux, so, yeah it absolutely will. I can still get the latest and greatest Linux updates for my 13 year old laptop. Windows support for it is also still strong. Meanwhile my 2011 MBP is long since no longer updatable.
> Upgrading parts cause e-waste, especially if the chips aren't generally as good as Apple Silicon so you have to upgrade more often. If you trade in or recycle your laptop with Apple, they should be able to do a better job of recycling than your average Framework user.
Now this is just getting downright silly.
> To me, the main selling point of Framework is that geeks can upgrade the CPU/GPU every year or once a year because they always want the fastest. The fact that Framework markets this as "environmentally friendly" is just a way to make them feel better about constantly upgrading. You can't convince me that the average Framework laptop is more environmentally friendly than a Macbook Air over its lifetime.
And, of course, finishing off with a final strawman flourish.
> It's running Linux, so, yeah it absolutely will. I can still get the latest and greatest Linux updates for my 13 year old laptop.
For example, Linux explicitly supported 386 CPUs until 2012 (its successor CPU came out in 1989) and is only discontinuing support for the 486 CPU now (its successor CPU came out in 1993).
This really is the kicker. CPUs over the past 20 years have gone from 2.4GHz to 5.6GHz clock speeds + bigger cache size and more cores. For most common tasks you're not going to see much difference between a 2-core and an 8-core CPU.
There just isn't much need for CPU advancements in today's average workloads (browsing, word processing, spreadsheets). Any further advancements (such as AI) will happen in the GPU (or whatever they're going to call the accelerator cards now that they're multi-purpose), while the CPU fight switches over to energy efficiency.
My friend was using his 8 year old MacBook Air with 4GB RAM until just last year when it stopped turning on. Browsing the web, watching YouTube, checking emails all worked just fine with 4GB of RAM.
Microsoft sells the surface laptop 2 with 4GB of non-upgradeable RAM today in 2023.
The 8GB of base RAM in the MacBook Airs will absolutely be fine for most people for the next 5-10 years. If you are tech savvy enough to even know what RAM is, then yes, I would recommend upgrading to at least 16GB because you are likely doing more than just browsing the web.
Some people can't afford that, and Apple sells storage and RAM at extortionate prices.
Maybe you start out thinking you just need to do your taxes but then get a job in video editing. People want to upgrade all the time and it's really bad that you have to toss out the whole computer to do it.
If you have enough money up front, or foresight, then yes. Even if that's the case in the minority of cases, that's enough to make it less environmetally friendly that being able to upgrade.
You usually have to customize the order on Apple's website to do this, which means your laptop could take a few weeks to arrive.
There's also other circumstances where this isn't an option. When I worked at a public university (UC system) that had an agreement with Apple, we could only purchase hardware that was in the University bookstore.
The University bookstore only stocked base models. Even the top-of-the-line 15" Macbook Pros didn't have a 16GB option once the RAM started being soldered down.
You're being down voted but I think you're 100% right. Most processing intense tasks are done on the GPU nowadays anyways, so even if someone truly needed the fastest machine to train their neural networks (which frankly still wouldn't justify a new motherboard every year) they couldn't use a framework laptop anyways because it only has a CPU
1. Upgrading is cheaper than a whole new system. This saves consumers money. Modern laptops increasingly solder parts down, making upgrades nigh-impossible (I've tried multiple times). Most tech companies have trade-in programs, but with dismal exhange rates. This gives the user more options and control over their hardware.
2. Countering planned obsolence and expensive repair costs associated with modern products.
3. Enabling upcycling, repurposing, and reducing ewaste. There are a fair number of environmentally conscious people in tech and tech-adjacent industries.