How could Laptop 12's price be reduced (optimally)?

Framework Laptop 12
21

I don’t think that is the case (especially for a security conscious district), at least not at the current prices.

At my prior highschool (currently a college student so that was a couple years ago) the Chromebook model they used was ~$160 USD on Amazon. Of course there has been a bit of inflation since then (but they may have also been getting bulk discounts) so let’s call it $180. Some of those lasted 5 years, some got replaced in their 2nd year due to students destroying them. Let’s call it 3 years. $180÷3 = $60/year.

The CPU in the Framework Laptop 12 likely has 5 years of security updates from the release of the laptop (Intel CPUs get ~7 years from release but Framework used a 2 year old CPU to save money). If school districts care about having up to date security updates (which admittedly most probably don’t, but perhaps they should) that means upgrading the mainboard every 5 years. Currently the cheapest Framework Laptop 12 mainboard is $300 USD. $300÷5 = $60/year.

So the Framework Laptop 12 is an average of $60/year for just the baseline mainboard upgrades required to continue receiving security updates. Whereas dirt cheap Chromebooks are all-in around that amount including the costs of replacements for other reasons (such as the major one of students destroying laptops).

Edit to add: I do absolutely believe the Framework Laptop 12 is a better experience for the users and better for the environment that a super cheap Chromebook. I’m just disputing that cost aspect.

22

I don’t disagree in principal. I think repairability and sustainability would catch on better if there was no price difference. But unfortunately, this won’t necessarily be the case. It depends on what you mean by “should” be cheaper.

It’s cheaper to make a single board that contains everything than it is to make multiple, separate boards and components to aid with repairability. It’s cheaper not to stock parts, especially old or discontinued products. And it’s definitely cheaper (for manufacturers) to sell folks entire new machines when one breaks rather than having repair guides and parts so they can repair and keep their old stuff.

It also lets a manufacturer sell their hardware cheaper when they mine data, fill their machines with bloat-ware, and try to sell a bunch of subscription services on top of the hardware.

I know it’s a tough sell to pay more. And hopefully it does become less of a price difference over time. But I think it’s likely that it will always be at least some amount more expensive to make repairable products, not make them a subscription, not fill them with bloat, and stock pars for them.

2 Likes
23

That is not going to happen until Framework are large enough to have a warehouse accessible from every country they sell into, and one can get -from day one release- a desired laptop off the shelf, i.e. a couple of days delivery from the warehouse immediately they become available to the public.

But achieving that level of production is going to be a major quantum leap from where they are at currently.

24

Just want to point out that people tend to miss the implicit cost of the [n]-year period.

Sure, there’s the upfront purchase cost, pretty transactional. Then there’s the [additional / extended] warranty cost (multiply the the number of years). What’s usually hidden is the cost of time. Depending on the individual, time might just mean salary if you’re a salaryman…to other’s it’s opportunity cost (billable hours that could be spent elsewhere). …etc…. Some costs are more transparent than others, some can be predetermined, some can’t.

That’s where people are different. Some people are harsh to their tech…some people just have really bad luck with tech (believe it or not)….

Update [Elaborate on the cost of time]:

With Framework, repair is mostly [You + Framework Support + email(s)]. (Perspective of data security, it’s great, it stays with you.) In some cases, you might be able to ship / hand it to a repair shop. With other PC brands, it’s a case of some combination of on-site / depot support + email…and possibly BestBuy / Microcentre drop-off (in North America). With Apple, largely Apple store drop off. Largely deterministic, minimal surprise…except the price depending on some repair. Some would argue that Apple’s repair experience is very over-engineered (such that the process removes the consumer in the process). Each of them have some varying degree of time duration determinism / indeterminism, which impacts your productivity up/down-time. Also, let’s not forget, human interaction / commute / shipping / packing / drop-off / pick-up also has a cost / effort / communication overhead. It’s a workflow process complexity / risk assessment (if we’re being pedantic / analytical). That cost changes from person to person, from city to city, from retailer to retailer.

In all cases of in-warranty repair process, the consumer is not the process owner. You don’t get to say how the process go…unless you remove the manufacturer in the equation (essentially throw the warranty out the window). Problem with Apple is that if you remove Apple from the equation, then you don’t really have a repair path at all. Some people are OK with that…especially for those who don’t want to be involved in the repair process, it’s a matter of money for time / sanity / result. It’s like me with the carpet…I don’t want to be the one laying down the carpet. Can I use a tape measure, hold a blade, bang away with a hammer? Sure…but I much rather having someone deal with it like …”just take my money”.

1 Like
25

That would be my wife. She picked up her laptop and the screen went black. I had to disassemble it and reassemble it to bring it back. Literally nothing wrong with it. WiFi gremlins killing WiFi quality when her Xbox is next to the AP. Gave up and hardwired as much stuff as I can in. Still get weird network issues at times. Nope, having bad luck with tech is just my wife in a nutshell.

26

Replying to myself, to further elaborate this point:

As an example, something as simple as two end-grain chopping block.

  1. With chopping block 1, it doesn’t break within 2 years.
  2. With chopping block 2, it breaks in the first month….but you can glue it back if you so choose.

Which is the better chopping block? Now, of course you’re not going to know for sure that either one will / will not break. But if I now put historical failure statistics of failure rate of: 5% failure rate within 2 years for block 1, vs, 6% failure rate of block 2 within the same 2-year period (yes, just even a 1% higher failure rate)… Does / doesn’t that affect your decision?

1 Like
27

To be fair, I seriously doubt any of Framework’s decisions while designing the FW 12 were, “This will result a lot of failures and warranty replacements. But it saves a bit of cost in manufacturing…”

4 Likes
28

To be fair, I think @Second_Coming was speaking more in generalities than alluding to Framework specifically

Then again, maybe he was

2 Likes
29

I’m not explicitly saying that…because cost saving is in the nature of every business. Now, whether that cost saving is / isn’t directly / indirectly impacting failure rate, we don’t know (and I’m not saying either or).

What I am saying / trying to say is: Decrease failure rate / support calls…get better customer experience, better word of mouth, wider market acceptance and client retention…that will improve scale…cheaper cost per unit.

How they decrease / reduce failure rate…I don’t know, and don’t claim to know.

I just know, me as a consumer / user of the product, I want something that fail less / less likely to fail. I don’t want to repair anything in the first year if it’s not my own doing. And I bet Framework wouldn’t mind having less support calls, especially from year0-1 customers.

3 Likes
30

I agree. Reducing failures and downtime is always preferable to a bit less cost on the front end, resulting in increased failures down the road.

I spent many years repairing things in the field. I am almost always willing (and sometimes even specifically seek out) to spend a bit more in order to get a better tool/device/piece of equipment. A cheap tool, even one with a lifetime warranty, is still a nightmare when it fails you in the field. It can delay up a job, result in lost time, result in buying twice to get through a job, even if the tool technically has a warranty, etc.

I suppose it’s a balancing act to try to reduce cost without increasing failures.

I know, we’re talking about laptops, not tools, lol. But the principal is similar. If a company cheaps out in the wrong way and it results in increased failures, it costs the customer AND the manufacturer money in the long run. Well, it does if the company stands behind their product. If they don’t, it only costs the customer. I see plenty of that these days too.

1 Like
31

Exactly. [Most] People buy laptops to use, not to repair.

The act of repair, typically comes after the fact that “I liked using it, I would like to continue using it”.

1 Like
32

People are comparing the Framework to the Macbook because the Macbook:

  • is considered a premium product (the most premium money can buy, if you ask the average person or most programmers and designers);
  • with (allegedly) great build quality, capable of lasting for a decade+;
  • sold by a company that is known for charging way more than their machine’s raw specs are usually worth (compared to similarly spec’d machines from the competition).

And yet, a similarly spec’d Framework 13” manages to be way more expensive than a base Macbook Air 13” (less than €950 for the M4 16GB 256GB model with power adapter and MacOS, versus €1373 for the 16GB no storage DIY base Ryzen AI model with power adapter and Windows Home). That’s 45% more (plus 2-4% more after you add an SSD). Of course, if you decide to go for more memory and storage, the Framework quickly ties (and if you keep going up, even beats) the Macbook, but people going for 12” and 13” models don’t typically do that, so most users don’t take that into consideration.

For a small brand to charge the same as Apple, they must have a great product and something that really sets them apart (which, imo, is the case for Framework). Charging 50% more than Apple for similar specs is bold, and will of course cause discussions like this.

33

Yup. I greatly appreciate repairability. I appreciate the ability to replace an aging battery, replace a port if it wears out or I kick the cord and snap it, swap out a dying SSD, replace a damaged screen, etc.

But if that comes at the cost of “requiring” constant repair? That’s a really tough sell. I still buy Framework machines (for now), because I want to support the idea and I want other companies to see that consumers value these things. And overall, they have actually worked quite well for me (I’m currently typing this on a FW 13 AMD that I’ve used with zero issue since they first launched). But as much as I like the FW 12, I probably wouldn’t recommend it to family or friends just yet…

34

Yeah, I think it’s essentially gen1 product risks / kinks with the FW12 at the moment. FW will eventually have things ironed out. Question is time and final cost per unit when things are up to scratch for general consumption.

35

IMHO, the 2-in-1 form factor makes more sense with a small, rugged device. If you’d be fine with a “classic laptop”, and you consider the 12” screen a downside that requires an upside to balance it out, then I think no amount of cost-cutting can make the FW12 work. At that point, even a used FW13 would probably be a better deal right now.

3 Likes
36

That’s the issue right now… even fans of FW laptops can’t reasonably recommend them to others unless money just isn’t a concern. The price between buying two laptops of similar specs vs FW (any of them) + an upgrade in two years is pretty much the same price, if not more expensive for the latter.

Sure the e-waste is a lot lower, but unless you have some spare money to spend, most people will always put their finances and getting the better deal over any kind of political convictions they have.

I was able to justify the FW12 to myself because i needed a few features all-in-one that’s hard to find in most devices at the same time.

But even then, I bought my own ram, SSD’s, and charger from elsewhere, and i’m primarily using linux for free. Most people are not willing to go that far when a prebuilt with better specs costs the same or even less. As a fan of FW, every time I see a comment online saying “the price is way too high, buying (other device)" instead, it sucks, because it’s true right now.

I really don’t want modularity and Right to Repair to be niche hobby interests. A small group of people saving on e-waste is not going to do the environment any good, and lord knows we can’t count on government regulations to make it happen either. And of course tariffs aren’t helping either.

But in order for that to be the case, FW and other modular companies need to figure out how to reduce the final consumer costs somehow. If they can’t increase batch sizing right now, maybe they should spend more time looking for grants from nonprofits and universities. There has to be institutions out there who would be willing to invest in this project who are against the dominance and irresponsibility of Big Tech, and that outreach also will draw in more customers as well.

2 Likes
37

I think another aspect of this is to convince folks that sometimes, especially early on, things may cost more if you want repairability and sustainability. You aren’t paying for extra performance, you’re paying for other things. Things that are just as real, but maybe not as exciting. Some people might pay a bit more to support a local business, or pay a bit more for recycled printer paper, or biodegradable cleaners, or products that aren’t tested on animals, etc. It’s not about performance per dollar, it’s about other things. Personally, I think it’s worthwhile to spend a bit more on products like Framework computers. Granted, whether anyone else agrees is up to them.

Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying everyone can or should be able to afford a Framework. If a friend wanted a recommendation for a $300 budget, obviously a FW 12 is going to be far too expensive. But if it’s a matter of spending FW 12 money, I personally feel like a case could be made for the FW 12 over something with more performance but less repairability, less upgradability, no configurable ports, possibily less Linux support, a more locked down hardware and software experience, etc.

Currently, my hesitance to recommend a Framework 12 isn’t specifically due to the performance value proposition. It has more to do with the possible quirks and quality issues. If I’m going to try to make the case to spend more on something, it shouldn’t also cause additional frustration from odd issues.

Once the cracking issue and maybe the trackpad alignment issues are squared away on the FW 12, I’d be willing to recommend it to family (assuming anyone asks me, lol), as long as no other issues come up in the meantime. I currently have two of them. Both of them cracked. One was replaced, the other I haven’t submitted a ticket because it’s extremely minor, and I made a “durability test” video with it where I abused it pretty hard, and didn’t feel right submitting a ticket for case damage. Both had miss-aligned trackpads, which I corrected. Despite those issues, both have worked well for me in use. Basically, every time I’ve wanted to browse the web, draw, type up a document, edit a photo, play a game, watch a video, etc., they’ve worked without issue. I’m typing this on my batch 3 sage FW 12 right now :wink: .

1 Like
38

I understand all of that. I’m fully aware that repairability and modularity will result in an increased upfront cost per part because of custom-built parts. But it still falls under the category of niche. Supporting a local business, recycled materials (e-waste reduction in our case), biodegradable cleaners, animal rights approved, and pretty much all of these things are personal choices to satisfy political stances of the individual. It’s also only possible if you can budget it out.

like i said i do have my reasons for pre-ordering the 12 aside from the belief in Right to repair. I needed a portable laptop with touch screen and good Linux support. Something very flexible rather than powerful. It fit my needs while being within budget. I genuinely can’t wait to get mine in a few days (or next week).

My point though is that FW advertises itself in its promotional videos as fighting e-waste and challenging Big Tech’s tendency towards planned obsolescence, yet doesn’t really provide devices that could do that (yet).

Most people are not politically conscious of things like the environment or hardware/software freedom, and even if they are, they have other things in their lives to budget out, especially if they don’t work in tech for a living. If the problem with e-waste is to be seriously dealt with, either a) the government steps in (i’m sure we all doubt that at the moment), or b) repairable devices are comparable enough to be within most people’s cost needs.

If FW doesn’t figure out a way to reduce consumer costs, either by lowering the price of existing specs (not even by a lot, but like, 10-15%), or by giving us better specs for the same price (more relevant for FW13 and 16 than the 12) then Right to Repair will be forever niche, thus the actual impact on the environment is miniscule (as far as e-waste is concerned). It’ll feel good for the people who do fork out the money for them, but actual change would be lacking. It’s fine if people want to commit for a cause (I mean, I did), but actual change requires a lot of people participating.

My hope is that they absolutely can in the future, which is why I support them, but it doesn’t hurt to state the obvious of where they’re at (and where RtR is in general).

1 Like
39

Oh, I agree. I even made a video comparing the FW 12 to a competitive option and said the biggest problem with the FW 12 was the fact that competitive options exist with better performance for less money.

I was just saying that part of what I think needs to happen for there to be any kind of major shift toward repairability and sustainability is not only bringing costs down where possible, but also just making the argument that you are getting something for the extra money, just nothing quite as exciting as extra raw performance or features. Because I fear that repairable, sustainable products will always cost a bit more, all else being equal, for various reasons. Including the fact that manufacturers will ultimately sell fewer units. And I’d hate for companies like Framework to make up the difference with data mining and subscriptions.

3 Likes
40

I’m no expert, but I think the production process is in a too early stage to talk about cost reductions. The company is still trying to figure all the possible failures (for example the cracked bottom) and to adjust process and materials to eliminate most (or even all) issues.

Think of the Framework 12 as the iPhone Pro of each year - there is some know-how (previous expertise), but there is also some innovation which drives the price up. In a year or two, the innovation will be cheap enough to trickle down in the base models which sell for less money and more people can afford them.

So, the answer is - we need time. With enough time the cost will naturally decrease or at least not increase as quickly as inflation.

1 Like