Laptops are mobile. Cell service has become essential. Two possibilities to meet this need:
Similar to the WIFI card, add internal capability for cellular service.
Create a hot-swappable expansion module to provide for cellular capability when needed.
Option 2) has the additional advantage to allow the expansion module to be shared between FW laptops and reduce the overall cost to the multi-laptop owner. In fact, this option should allow the module to be shared across ALL FW products.
EDIT:
Just to be clear, I’m not looking for advice on alternatives to WIFI such as Android cell phone hotspots. I already use those when necessary.
I’m proposing an innovative feature that, if Framework deems it practical, would be a significant differentiating feature to add to the already game-changing design of their laptops.
Also the expansion card wouldn’t be enough, there would need to be antennas, propably new cables like the wifi card has and those would be needed to be routed to the display frame.
I do this from Android, make sure you have the recent BIOS 3.20 upgrade which supports WiFi 6E (on gen 11 Intel models), and also check your hotspot is set up to offer Wifi 6E.
“Just use your mobile phone to create a hotspot.”
The problem with that is it drains your cell phone battery faster – and if you need cell service you may not be in range of electrical plugs (or the power may be out).
Example: After Hurricane Harvey, we had to be evacuated from flood waters, then the power went out where we were evacuated for about 3 days. I thought to pack my Android tablet (cell-enabled) along with my phone. The entire time the power was off, I was using Google Sheets and Docs on the tablet to document my calls on my cell phone to insurers and others to start the process of recovery – which was a massive task. If the cell phone had been used as a hotspot, I probably couldn’t have lasted long enough to get the job done.
As for the additional equipment, that’s a given – but that’s what Framework’s engineers do, fit a lot of stuff in a small enclosure (and they seem to be pretty good at it).
“I do this from Android . . .”
The idea is to provide an alternative to Android. This allows you to use your normal tools: Linux or Windows, LibreOffice, MS-Office, etc., PDF Editors, etc. while you are away from your office (or in case of an extended power failure where WIFI is no longer an option) without having to resort to extraordinary measures.
An option for an internal cellular modem would be ideal. I think (hope) others aren’t saying that tethering to a phone, via wifi or usb, is the best solution, it just the only solution we have. As there is no just room in the current FWL13 or FWL16 for a cellular modem.
An expansion card could be a solution, but it feels like it might be a poor one, since there isn’t room for good antennas and the location isn’t great for them either.
When we get LPCAMM2 RAM in Framework laptops, then there should be room. @ Framework, please tell us you’ve been working on LPCAMM2 and have it lined up for next gen. Sure, modules are currently not cheap, but since when have Frameworks been cheap.
Supporting this on the motherboard would require a design for extra antennas and something that can be maintained (both hardware and software/firmware) to accommodate differente providers - at much greater cost and complexity than tethering an LTE modem or to a USB/Wifi hotspot. It would also take up space and resources otherwise useful for other much more common uses.
Supporting this as a module, well, takes up one module slot and will still require external antennas.
On second thought, it would make more sense to use the secondary m.2 slot for a WWLAN card (still needing more design to accommodate antennas), but you can’t - see:
I don’t see any practical scenario where having a portable router or Wifi hotspot on your phone, specially now with Wifi 6E/7 available is not the best way to go (which doesn’t mean there isn’t!). If you need such a setup for more than a few hours, it’s not something I expect the laptop battery to cover for.
That depends on your particular use case; others might disagree (as you said, “which doesn’t mean there isn’t!”). There IS precedence for this.
A laptop wireless adapter was sold or leased for many years by wireless carriers. They recently moved to a mobile router/modem hotspot instead, but even though it is reasonably small it is still larger and bulkier than the original design.
And the original design gives you better freedom of movement than the mobile hotspot which requires you to be attached by cable for a direct connection. If you connect wirelessly, the connection may be less secure than the direct connection.
Yes, the mobile hotspot MAY be more powerful, perhaps, but there may also be scenarios where the user’s need can be satisfied by a smaller, less powerful device. I’m thinking particularly of inner city vs suburbs or rural areas.
Mobile use cases that come to mind immediately are route sales people, auditors, and technicians or contractors in the field (many field technicians already use company laptops specially equipped with cellular capability). Using the cell phone as a hotspot may not be a desirable or practical option.
Besides, technology has advanced greatly since both of these devices were originally created. A Raspberry Pi or similar device can be quite small. IOT devices, such as on your home alarm or even refrigerator can easily use a small single board computer (SBC) to run a system on a chip (SoC) using a lightweight version of Linux to perform a specialized set of functions.
When you think of it, a lot of lower-tier tablets have only WIFI unless you pay extra. This device has the potential to be swapped between devices, thereby allowing you to move it to whichever device you are using (even if it isn’t a Framework device). This extends the marketability, which over time can mean lower incremental cost.
“I see this as an interesting but extremely niche case.”
Niche cases can be extremely profitable. Support for 486 computers was a niche case when Intel went to Pentium chips. AMD made fortune off what Intel left behind.
Of course, the size of the niche is important. Framework would have to determine if the current AND POTENTIAL demand would justify the investment either now or later – but in previous posts I have identified just a small sample of use cases that could be a viable potential market.
IMO, either option is certainly worth investigating – but in the end, it’s Framework’s decision.
I’m not disputing that there may be a market for it, but I do believe that if it ever comes to fruition, it will be via a third party. In my opinion if the potential market were sizable and profitable enough, there would be options available. Since using a phone as a hotspot via tethering or in standalone covers the vast majority of the use cases, the remaining addressable market is significantly reduced, which is why I see it as something that is likely to be addressed by a third party, if at all.
“In my opinion if the potential market were sizable and profitable enough, there would be options available.”
I understand – and either one of us could be right on this – but I do think it’s worth Framework’s time to do a little research and analysis to consider the idea. I am certainly interested in this capability, whether by internal modification or expansion module, and I seriously believe there is an unmet market need.
I agree that there is some question as to why the need is not currently answered, but history has shown that suppliers are not always sensitive to market needs. Many years ago, the head of Bell Labs actually expressed the opinion that no one needed to communicate electronically at more than 14.5Kbps and refused to provide the technology they had already developed to do so. And not long ago, US ISPs refused to offer much more than 10Mbps (and usually much less) – even though Japan ISPs were providing around 100Mbps at that time.
It took one innovator to prove them wrong and market competition took care of the rest. The same is true of modular design – and Framework is certainly proving the competition is wrong.
However, Framework will have to determine their breakeven point and then how much more to make a profit at what unit cost – and then determine if the estimated yearly sales will meet their target. And only time will tell which of us is right.