The crux of the matter is that even if one values upgradability and repairability, neither is a frequent need for practically anybody. Reliable machines rarely need repairs outside of owner mistreatment, and most people I know who are technically capable enough to care about upgrading generally do it maybe once every 4-6 years, by which point hardware has usually advanced far enough that buying a new laptop is easy to justify.

So while upgradability and repairability are great to have, their material impact on day to day user experience is minimal, except maybe for people who have a tendency to severely underspec their initial hardware purchases. On the other hand, things like chassis rigidity, cooling performance, fan noise, and battery life being subpar are constant reminders that you spent a pretty penny on a laptop that's not meeting your needs.

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.

As an aside, I believe that Framework could probably get closer to that ideal if they unchained themselves from the port module idea. Yes it's cool, but it forces all sorts of design compromises that otherwise wouldn't be necessary, and I'd bet that something like 80-90% of Framework buyers would be just as happy if changing ports required opening up the chassis, swapping out side plates, and doing a little bit of internal wiring.

I just bought a car, and the same issue exists there. I can buy an expensive car that is also expensive to service, or a slightly cheaper car that is cheap to service, or a cheap car that is cheap to service.

That middle ground is much nicer than realising after the honeymoon period that it's costing you an arm to replace the control box for the left headlight. But TCO is really difficult to find numbers on, especially when you don't exactly know how you'll use the device as you buy it.

Right? People claim that the pricing is "absurd" as if they're forced to buy it. Framework offers repairable laptops at a fixed price. To some the repairability adds enough value to warrant the higher prices, to some it doesn't. (As well as customizability and mainline Linux kernel support).

I've found that if you're in the habit of repairing laptops, Frameworks may come cheap to you as you might have spare storage and ram around. Not being forced to buy ram and storage is one of the "luxuries" of buying framework.

> I think ultimately what frustrates me is that people don’t consider the ability to repair or upgrade your machine part of a “premium” experience, but that’s is just something I have to accept. I think it is unfortunate that our consumerist culture places so little value on it though.

Buying one of the original Frameworks and a Macbook Air at roughly the same time made me realize how little I actually care about upgradeability and repairability. This feeling took me by surprise. Modern Macbooks are just so much better in terms of feel it's like comparing tech from a different decade.

(it also turns out that having a defect that the manufacturer doesn't make right can cause a person to feel a few different things, but gratitude for the product's repairability isn't at the top of the list)

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."

> In contrast, Framework laptops has many supposed benefits: they're upgradable, repairable

Why would you propose that the author does not care about these things? They clearly do, they are simply not a single issue voter – and who is, when buying something as complex as a laptop? There is a trade-off and the one that Framework made here is not hitting the mark for the author, and they go into some detail to explain as to why.

I am super excited about Framework stuff: They are clearly getting somewhere with this; it's nicer than anything that came before with comparable repairability. I think it's super plausible that we don't exhaust the physical limitations that arise through repairability before it's so nice, that the trade-off will be negligible for most folks.

Value wise when trying to spec out my personal Lenovo laptop on framework, it'd never get anywhere close to being worth it even if I completely made use of the hardware after a future upgrade.

Framework makes sense if you're going in on the sustainability idea, but other than that it's really just an expensive laptop that's not compelling against its competitors

> but I can’t help but be frustrated by the constant lack of understanding of the core value proposition of framework both in this post and in many comments here on hn.

On the contrary, I think a lot of people completely understand the value proposition. It’s just that once you evaluate it against all of the tradeoffs and other priorities, it reveals that upgradeability is not as valuable as the other priorities. Most consumers aren’t single-issue voters who purchases hardware based on a single axis of features.

With Framework laptops specifically I’ve started to feel like “but it’s upgradable!” is becoming a tired rebuttal to any discussion of the tradeoffs you take one when you buy one of these machines.

In theory I enjoy an upgradeable machine, too. But in practice I’m not willing to give up much now in exchange for the possibility of maybe upgrading part of it later.

This is a classic example of revealed preference in product design. When you ask people in a vacuum if they want features like upgradeability, swappable batteries, or tiny phones that fit in your pocket the answer is always “Yes, obviously!” Then when the product comes to market and people have to vote with their wallets they survey the options and pick the laptop that’s light and highly integrated, the phone with a built-in battery that’s compact and sturdy, and the phone with a screen big enough to not feel cramped. This leaves a vocal minority trying to tell everyone else that they’re making the wrong choice or they have their priorities wrong, but the simpler answer is that these products are best reserved for the minority of people who prize singular design goals like upgradeability options to such an extreme that they’re willing to compromise or ignore everything else.

Dave2D made the argument that you could buy another laptop for the same price as upgrading the Framework 16. This makes it hard to accept the quality tradeoffs.

I have a FW13, 3 yrs old, battery was getting weak, i just ordered one from FW and popped out the old one and put in a new one. Same for SSD and memory. This alone makes me stay with FW.

I think the bigger problem is Framework doesn't actually offer as much in upgradeability as it sounds. While it can be compared to laptops without modular RAM, SSDs, or Wi-Fi cards, the real comparison is to laptops with modular ones of those for significantly less and suddenly the amount of upgradeability value drops significantly. Unofficially, many of the laptops I've had I've been able to upgrade even the screen on as well. The value prop for replacing the mainboard+CPU while keeping the same generation RAM and SSD is really not that high in terms of upgradeability - especially with the breadth of selection so far. In the meantime, you're paying significantly more for less quality to have said ability.

To me, the core value proposition of the Framework is actually more in customization than about upgradeability. That's just a lot less valuable overall. I.e. you can place your port layouts in any order you want, you can customize the keyboard style and layout, your order builds up without really assuming you want a charger, RAM, and SSD to be included. If you don't particularly care about those things or you can find a laptop which matches what you want up front then it just leaves you questioning the massive price increase to do it the Framework way instead.

I'd really like to enjoy the idea of fully upgradeable laptops, but I think trying out a Framework laptop just made me realize how much it doesn't work out like I'd hoped rather than making me more excited for it. I ended up returning it and, ironically, getting a 395 laptop with soldered RAM (in my defense, Framework sells a desktop with this as well).

Your comment is sensible, so long as repair parts aren't duds all the time, and repairs don't cost you the same as a purchase.

For most laptops, including macs, replacing things like batteries and screens is not what makes them irreparable, but it is things like the cpu, discrete gpu, etc.. I applaud framework on what they're doing, but it isn't there yet. If anything on the mothrerboard breaks, you're looking at a hefty repair bill to replace it. If they keep a decent stock of original,tested and quality parts long-term (10+ years) that would be one thing, but if "repair" means upgrading to the latest stuff, then it is just saving you on a replacement.

Ideally, I would purchase replacement components at the time of purchase, so if I have a loose $300 after the initial purchase, I might spend it on a spare ram, cpu, or gpu. Now, with that money, I can only buy cosmetic/casing parts, battery, connectors and such. Again, I appreciate their direction, and if we're spending to support them alone, that's great. But they have been around for a while, and some constructive criticism regarding value might be good.

If I wanted the innards of my laptop to be upgradable, I would want the only part of it that would stay with me for the next decade or two (the chassis) to be damn near perfect.

There's a reason why there are enthusiasts making custom motherboards and screen adapters for old-school (seven-row) ThinkPads. These things were built like a German executive sedan.

Upgradable to what? The ability to upgrade is well and good, but suppose the “endgame” configuration of an upgradable laptop was worse than the very base model of a non-upgradable. Why would you care about upgradability then?

Also buying a laptop that’s not subsidized by ads and shovelware.

> but no where is there an evaluation of the value granted by upgradability and repeatability

Back in the day we used to have upgradeable laptops that weren't rattling tin cans with uncomfortable displays. Making something worse than it was 20 years ago for more money isn't a value.

The idea of upgrading a laptop may sound great at first, but I don't think most people really want that.

After 2-3 years, my laptop is pretty beat up from carrying it around in a bag daily. I usually buy premium laptops, but still the hinges get loose, the corners bent, scratches everywhere, ports loose. Usually superficial issues like that make me buy a replacement before I really need upgraded chips.

I'm torn on your take, because on one hand I agree wholeheartedly (I own a Framework 13, and considered the repairability to be a part of the price, and a little added bulk to be a trade off I was comfortable with), but on the other, I think there's just some entirely-reasonable human psychology at work here that expects a €2k laptop to be premium in fit, finish, and polish.

But I do think Framework still has a ways to go when it comes to polish and build quality. I've had my 13 since August 2022, and had a ton of problems with it (thermal issues) that were only resolved nearly two years later, after lots of frustrating back-and-forth with support. I'm very happy with the laptop these days, but it shouldn't have taken that long to get there. I now have the 2023 Intel mainboard (the final resolution to my support case), and I'm looking forward to upgrading it to whatever the 2026 model turns out to be[0].

For me, Framework has been sort of a "stick with it for a while and it will get better" type of experience. And while it's worked out, that shouldn't be how it works. It should work well on day one. And frankly, based on the author's description of the Framework 16, it sounds like the 16 is not even up to the 13's level of polish.

[0] Well, we'll see what DRAM prices look like next year, as I have 64GB of DDR4 in my current laptop, and that same amount of DDR5 is not something I'd want to pay for right now.

Happy Framework 13 user here to say this.

I recently realized the 32Gb I had originally spec'd isn't enough for work lately. Easy fix, I just ordered more RAM.

Pretty straightforward value prop here. If that's not why you want, buy a different device.

Is it fair to say that maybe the author doesn't value repairability? Maybe they just want a 'premium' laptop in the way the Apple laptops are premium, but want x86 and Linux/Windows? Surely for as large as a market there is for Apple laptops there is for a non-macOS equivalent.

> an evaluation of the value granted by upgradability and repeatability of the machine

The market assigns almost no value to these tenets, nor do the consumers participating in it.

> the constant lack of understanding of the core value proposition of framework both in this post and in many comments here on hn

That value proposition isn't good enough for the machine you have to live with day after day. I think a lot of people get the value proposition, but Framework just isn't a good enough machine. Even if it might be an interesting platform.

And, the world still needs better Linux laptops. The value proposition in that demand apparently isn't resulting in them.

> "People (not necessarily the author, [...] will lament how manufacturers don’t have upgradable ram, etc and then turn around and are upset at the bulkiness of a repairable laptop, or the price."

I desire sturdyness and repairability but anything larger than a 14-inch machine (and then only either as detachable or at least convertible) is completely inacceptable to me. And that 14-incher better be a dream. In other words: As small and light as possible, as big and heavy as neccessary.

Sorry I didn't buy framework laptop but did find their prices high. Regarding assigning premium to repairability, wonder what's really premium about that? I mean in terms of materials used. Ignoring premiums paid for branding, I would think it's fair to charge premium if offering such feature comes with higher cost.

2000 euros was a premium price 10 years ago, today it is closer to mid range

I agree, if they had a framework it would have been trivial to swap to a new keyboard.

Also I get annoyed where they say they don’t like it but don’t yet have an alternative.

>Frequently the author brings up that for 2,000 euros they expect a premium experience, but no where is there an evaluation of the value granted by upgradability and repeatability of the machine, and only briefly is there mention of the configurability.

I'm convinced that a lot of people have Dunning-Kruger effect when it comes to niche products like Framework. The fact that Framework exists at all is amazing, and like you said, it's frustrating to see the lack of understanding of the core value proposition of Framework both in this post and HN.

The author seems to be very aware of the benefit of upgradability, but thats not an excuse for the shoddy experience. Some of the issues the author mentions are just absurd. Sharp edges, panels that creak? Come on.

One of the issues with the 16 is it’s just a way worse value proposition than the 13.

The 13 is great. I’d even go as far as calling it a good deal, cheap even, especially if you DIY and bring your own memory and storage.

The 16 just gets badly outclassed by alternatives.

I think the problem is that once you get into that big laptop territory people start wanting more specific use cases like gaming or other performance metrics. There has to be a reason to want a big bulky laptop.

Plus, bigger laptops more frequently come with better repeatability.

I also find that there’s a lot more PC competition in the 15-16” screen sizes. The framework 13” is actually uniquely small/light. The Framework 16” is somewhat worse packaging than its competitors.

The 16” really needs to have an option for a 5070Ti and 5080.

I think you’ve brought a really interesting point up. A lot of these laptops are the way they are because miniaturisation. Framework trades that off. But for some, this tradeoff isn’t in the right spot.

The challenge for framework is to build a modern laptop, that doesn’t have these tradeoffs. Which is an impossible challenge, hence why all of the other manufacturers ditched it. (That and repairability being bad for business)

So, a framework laptop, that’s as light, thin and fast as a mbp, while being a comparable price and being able to pull tabs to swap ram. The better their engineering, the closer they get to this and the more customers they can please.

You're not calling out the upgrade ability enough.

Most people comparing the price of a Framework seem to miss the long view. After the initial purchase, every upgrade is cheap compared to buying an entire laptop over and over again. Bonus that you can repurpose or sell the old mainboard.

There are better laptops than Framework when compared as one-to-one at a certain point in time, but that's missing the point of Framework's approach.

I for one am delighted with my Framework laptop that started out as an Intel, is now an AMD, and has seen 3 rounds of in life upgrades. Zero regrets.

The author should have just bought a MacBook.

There are weirdos out there. I am looking for a bulkier and more hackable laptop! I bought a ThinkPad P14s Gen5 AMD which has turned out to be a flimsy, plastic (not magnesium like the Intel units), disappointing piece of shit with frequent (but known) GPU crash issues, which I bought because I had a certain moment when I needed a computer and the Framework 16 was still on last-gen hardware, which felt silly to buy so close to an inevitable upgrade. I wish I had, though. Not much difference between an 8840HS and a 7840HS, but a huge difference between even a fairly upgradable ThinkPad like the P14s and a Framework.

I feel like Framework wasn’t for this customer. They would have been happier with a Lenovo or something or a Mac.

Is 2000 eur even a lot of money? I think that gets you into better than dogshit laptop territory but I'd hesitate to claim that a 2000 eur purchase every >5 years puts you in "luxury" territory.

I bought a Framework 13 because I wanted to send a signal to the industry that there was a market for repairable devices with good Linux support.

I also wouldn't be buying anything from them in the future one because supporting a certain individual developer, DHH, who holds political opinions incompatible with my existence very easily makes the "buying Framework for political reasons" bit moot. Their CEO avoiding the issue and throwing a red herring (Hyprland) into the discussion didn't help either.

I know I'm certainly not the only one who feels this way.