alt Hacker News> 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.
Replies
> 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.
> 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.