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.
No, that an earlier firmware than what CJ was using was known to work, possibly pre-release.
Itâs not an accusation; itâs 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 doesnât 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 theyâre 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 donât 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 donât 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 wouldnât need such an ability until upgrades are made available, by which point it would be pushed out in an update
Iâll slap em on the wrists for it but Iâll not pretend some righteous anger over what is ultimately a minor issue at best
I would appreciate it greatly if everyone stopped calling it a minor issue.
It is subjective. To me it is a VERY minor thing. But I write software for a living, and I understand how development goes. My perspective makes this a minor issue.
Can you explain how this problem is currently injurious to you?
I guess the problem for me is that I donât see malicious intent and because of that Iâm 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, itâs 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
Edit: It looks like Framework delivered after all
It is subjective. To me it is a MAJOR thing. But I also write software for a living, and I understand how development goes. My perspective makes this a MAJOR issue 
(In case anyoneâs wondering, Iâm just teasing)
Since Framework has released a BIOS fix to support running the motherboard w/o battery, has anyone (Iâm 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?
Yes he did test it and posted an update to his channel saying itâs now working.
Well⌠IMO @CJ_Elevated was right to be mad if he didnât get what he paid for.
BUUT⌠maybe shouldâve tested a couple of firmware versions before making the video?
Still Iâm happy with my Framework Laptop (batch 3) and did subscribe to @CJ_Elevated channel.
Looking forward to the videos to come. 
What I donât understand is why the brick that comes with the laptop isnât powerful enough to run the board without a battery, or there isnât 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 thereâs not a battery connected.
@slickmann1 , Intel CPUs are notoriously power-hungry. The reason why the brick isnât âpowerful enoughâ is because there are power states that the CPU can enter which would require more than 60W of power (e.g. when plugging in my HDR monitor, Windows demands that I plug in the power adapter to display HDR content). In those configs the system is using both the adapter and the battery to power the system; resulting in the battery slowing running down.
This is all because these GaN adapters are kind of new technology and the 100 W adapters are only just beginning to become mainstream. In the future Framework can/will offer a 100W branded adapter.
I knew gallium nitride was new, but I didnât know 100 W was that new. Didnât USB just release a 240W certification that includes USB C? Your argument is pretty sound, though.
As of the latest BIOS update, this functionality is enabled
If someone could lock this thread or update the main post to include language stating something to the effect that the problem is resolved, this would help tremendously I think
I know about the BIOS update, my comment was about sufficient power delivery.