“Designed… to” and “can” are not present-tense, they imply possibility, not current functionality. I see the disconnect, the misunderstanding, and where they came from, but I most certainly don’t see where this witchhunt is coming from. I think the quotes above could have chosen their wording better to be more clear about the fact that this was future functionality, but assuming that it was worded to be intentionally misleading is more than one step too far. Framework has done nothing in the past to indicate that they are that kind of company, and what I’m reading here doesn’t appear to be a shift away from their past transparency in the slightest. If anything, I think what I’m seeing here is that Framework has done such a good job so far in supporting their customers and making sure they’re doing the right thing that perhaps we became a bit spoiled, such that it became possible for a 50-post thread to spawn from one bios function still being in beta.
I have a great deal of respect for the Framework team and for many of you here on this forum, including many who have already expressed dissenting points of view to mine here, but we really all need to step back and remember that we (framework staff included) are all human, we all make mistakes, we all miscommunicate, we all overreact, and that’s all okay. Own up to it and move on. We’re here because we agree with the mission to fix consumer electronics; the word ‘immediately’ and its synonyms are notably absent there. This will all take time, we just have to be patient and trust that NRP will keep his promise to ‘not [eff] this up,’ and hold him to it if he or his team reneges on that deal, but nothing here is evidence that any promise made is any closer to being broken, only that the makers of those promises, and those they made those promises to, are human, and that’s okay.
There is another possibility. Framework have said in a comment on the video that ‘It actually works with older firmware as well if you use a higher-wattage power adapter’. I am sure they will not have said that without testing it. They cannot have tested all brands of adapters. Maybe it just happened to work with the ones they used for testing. Maybe there is some reason that @CJ_Elevated’s adapter is not compatible for this purpose. Or maybe there is a fault in his motherboard.
I would have thought that the first thing to do when something they say works but he says does not is to reach out to Framework to investigate it further before posting public videos accusing them of breaking promises. He knows Framework are very responsive on this forum and to support questions, unlike so many other companies.
@njf Er no. It’s not a fault with just one board. They said that they are working on an update to allow it to work without a battery. Which means that it’s not currently implemented.
Further, laptops from yesteryear that had removable batteries were able to start without their battery. This is a normal thing I’ve come to expect from laptops. (granted that I haven’t purchased and torndown a laptop in quite a while)
@Shawn_Lewis I am referring to this quote from Framework.
‘3.06 firmware which is currently in beta testing has battery-less operation working (with a few nits), and will be fully functional in an upcoming firmware update. It actually works with older firmware as well if you use a higher-wattage power adapter, just not the 60W adapter we ship with.’
I am not implying anything. I am merely saying that an approach to Framework support would have been the normal thing to do before posting a video on Youtube accusing Framework of failing to meet promises.
EDIT: And there you go - a firmware update is posted one day after the video. If he had asked Framework first, all this could have been avoided.
It’s not an accusation; it’s a statement of fact. They promoted this functionality, but shipped without it implemented for the early adopters. All they had to do was issue a statement before release saying it would be implemented later via firmware update, and it would have been fine.
I acknowledge this is honestly a small issue which doesn’t affect me in the slightest; I have no intention of using the mainboard as anything other than a laptop, and I expect this applies to 99.9999% of all users. But given how the laptop was promoted, it absolutely should have been disclosed ahead of time.
Like everyone else here, I support Framework and what they’re attempting to do, but I also think the worst thing we can do is make excuses for them the way Apple fanboys will regardless of the blatantly anti-consumer practices they engage in. If we want better, we have to expect better, especially from the brands that we champion. This was an unforced error by Framework, and CJ was 100% right to call them out on it.
I 100 percent agree but I also don’t think anyone here is making excuses-the message consistently this far has been that framework could have phrased things better or been more transparent about what features were or were not available
What I think the disagreement is about is a question of malice, to say that framework lied is to say that framework was acting fraudulently and was actively working to deceive its customers
I don’t think framework was acting with ill intent-I suspect that because progress was already being made on this feature behind the scenes, Framework made the poor decision to advertise it as a done deal, surmising that many users wouldn’t need such an ability until upgrades are made available, by which point it would be pushed out in an update
I’ll slap em on the wrists for it but I’ll not pretend some righteous anger over what is ultimately a minor issue at best
I guess the problem for me is that I don’t see malicious intent and because of that I’m willing to live and let live with a public statement from framework expressing a commitment to greater transparency
To me, if a customer truly feels the product has been misrepresented, it’s time to pursue legal remedies-either by returning and getting a refund or sue in small claims court
This pretty much sums up my position and I think main arguments have been stated eloquently by forum members, what is needed is a public statement from framework to clarify things
Since Framework has released a BIOS fix to support running the motherboard w/o battery, has anyone (I’m looking at you, @CJ_Elevated) even tested it? Will those in this thread who are severely aggrieved by the initial deficiency now acknowledge the issue is resolved?
What I don’t understand is why the brick that comes with the laptop isn’t powerful enough to run the board without a battery, or there isn’t a more powerful option available from Framework themselves. Both the board and the brick support PPS, therefore the board should tell the brick to supply the higher power only when there’s not a battery connected.