It has to do with multi-product cycle / recycling lifespan:
We don’t seem to have a similar chart of this (from the FL13):
Part of the reasons for user buy-in with the FL13 was due to sustainability. Recycled aluminium, recycled plastic:
The design of the case I posted didn’t fully matter on the exterior side. Because I point I was trying to make was that $42 CAD can buy my 80% of the case, the material, which has metal plates (on the inside). i.e. It was a material cost example.
Did I say that, or someone else did?
I get that you may not have followed Framework from the start, but Framework started their mission with environment and sustainability pretty high up on their mission (based on their own publications)…during their user-buy-in / sales pitch phase.
With the Framework Desktop, there’s no mention of recycled material on the product overview page.
Other brands, Acer, for example, also have been using various mix of recycled materials. Mind you though, even then, recycled plastic has limited lifespan (if recycled…this alone is a big questionable pre-requisite)…essentially waste with an expiration date.
You are mixing to aspects here. The one thing is the price, the other thing is the sustainability of the design. Those two are not necessarily correlated. There is no doubt that you are paying a premium with Frameworks offer. You can get cases certainly cheaper than what the Desktop case costs on top of Mainboard and PSU.
Regarding recycled materials, if that information is missing than Framework could do better there, yes. Every plastic has a limited life span. For non-mechanically stressed parts it should fairly easily outlive the lifespan of the electronics though, if not a few generations of electronics.
The other person brought up the price (of more expansive than $42 just for a single front panel/ grill). That was in response to them initially.
I questioned the $42 in relation to the ‘function’. (i.e. [1] and [2] in the OP) If it’s $5 and not doing much, I’d probably care less. If it’s $42 and gives me some usability, I would probably care less. The combination of $42 and doesn’t seem to do a whole lot…I care more.
Then there’s [3] in the OP, the plastic, current recycling tech can only recycle plastic a handful of times. It’s a limited lifespan material, as such, metal should be first considered. And this goes towards [2] as well…function. Material choice has to go with the intended function. “Customization” in this case in combination with material choice of plastic is what I don’t get. I understand people like to customize their cases, can you not do that with traditional case front panels?
Then there’s the design of the tile attachment mechanism, it’s Framework-specific even though it’s ‘open-sourced’. Hell, an x by y dimension front grill / peg board-style design with a grid of holes is more of a universal design. Screws ( holes and inserts) are perfectly universal. I would argue that the tile attachment mechanism is a re-engineered wheel…that’s not round.
Here’s an idea if you want metal, opt out of the tiles, CAD a full panel grill that locks into the front and order it on CNC Aluminum Machining Services | Custom Aluminum Parts In Canada or any other aluminum CNC company. It might take a few iterations to get the fit just right and assuming you get the fit perfect on the first try, I still think it will cost more than $42 CAD (considering black anodizing) but I’ll be happy to be proven wrong. If you post your CAD then everyone will have the option to opt for a metal grill instead of the tiles.
You didn’t get the point I guess. Maybe I didn’t convey this well enough. It shouldn’t need to be an end-user-made custom part to begin with. It ought to be an OEM option, OOTB, base model, default package. Tiles should be the alternative customization option, the custom piece. As if you’re buying a car, base model without sunroof, add-on with sunroof.
The attachment mechanism shouldn’t need to be Framework tile slot specific.
Imagine if Framework had this a base model front panel:
The attachment mechanism is just holes and slots, universal, while still providing the necessary holes for airflow. Hole size and grid density to be decided. But that panel should be attached to the case via 4 corner screws, such that if people don’t even like that panel, they can replace it with something else entirely…or go tiles as the other OEM option.
Sometimes, having an ‘open source’ attachment design may not be as good (accessible) as a universal design (screws / pegs / inserts).
Framework computers has expansion cards that has to be purchased too. Those are not included in the default package but designed to give options for customization. Do you have a problem with that as well then since it’s not included in the base package?
This is a company whose products are made to be tinkered with and for the customer to put the product together, not for the product to just power on fully constructed OOTB. The nice thing about FW is that they post the CAD models so that if you don’t like something or want it a specific way, you can build your own parts how you like it. If you don’t want to do that then you’ll have to put up with what you’ve got and hope that someone else posts a CAD down the line.
That I don’t, as it provides a point of continuity for existing customers. And also, expansion cards design had port fault tolerance built-in, by design. That is a good design.
Again, you’re arguing as if I don’t consider the customization aspect. That is not true. My issue is specifically combination 1, 2 and 3.
That peg board looking thing…if you didn’t realise…that is almost like the cheese grater, depending on how you arrange the holes…and how big you want the holes. i.e. Using full face of holes as a front is nothing new, but if we can turn that into a peg board design for customization attachment, that gives the holes additional functional purpose than just airflow.
There is no sich thing as a universal front mounting design. Certainly not for such an odd size.
Any third party front plate would have to be specifically designed for the Framework Desktop anyway, either mounting in the tile frane or straight away to the magnets that are holding that drame.
You seem to dislike the tile concept, fair enough but resource wise I doubt it has a bigger resource baggage than alternative unibody designs, incl. those from metal or wood.
In Austria, plastic waste is generally either recycled or burned in incinerators with sophisticated gas purification systems, whereas the released energy is used in distributed heating systems.
Like I said, metal is more durable but likely does not have a smaller CO2 footprint.
Framework is responsible for their design globally… Unless we all send our Framework related waste to Austria (additional footprint).
Assume what you said is accurate, and that the recycling and incineration process is replicated globally, then you’re indicating / suggesting that producing and using plastic is fine. There’s no need to minimize the use of it, right?
i.e. There’s optimism in your vision.
Also, I was thinking, the “front grill material” is already there…they just need to stamp it out differently, make that into a front grill design, not an internal panel. i.e. Make that piece into a full grid pattern, ‘prettier’ as well, increase the holes to grid material area ratio for better airflow:
For example, a random honeycomb ‘pattern’ off the internet, it would fit circular inserts (pegs, screws…etc) just fine, and looks decent, has good airflow (Forget that it’s 3d printed in the photo. This ought to be some stamped out sheet of metal in mass production):
Something like this could have been the default case, base model. Then you can go with or without additional tiles of your choosing, without it looking like the first image. i.e. You can go without that tile-holder piece. But of course, the power button will need to be reworked.
