I came across Framework today and it really excited me to see something like this on the market. Could we see something included in the warranty that covers you for the next 3 years for upgrades if component sizes change in the near future?
I’m very enthusiastic about BIFL models and repairing and keeping things you own rather than buying new, and I think Framework have built something a lot of us will pay for if it means not having to buy a new laptop every several years.
What this would mean – Framework cover the cost of a new chassis (could be 1 chassis per 3 years, and coverage for a 3-year period, so basically guaranteed at least one chassis upgrade).
This would cost Framework a small amount, as predictably less than 20% of customers would upgrade their chassis in a 3-year period, but would be a very strong marketing incentive for people.
If a laptop’s motherboard works reliably, you generally don’t need to replace it just because it’s a few years old. The more likely reasons to upgrade are wanting a faster CPU, better integrated graphics, or support for newer workloads.
I think if I had the certainty that I can upgrade the CPU after at least 3 years (which is usually when I replace a laptop, or phone for speed purposes), then I would hands down buy the new Framework Laptop 16.
Please consider this in the future, as I think it could incentivise a big part of the market to make the switch over.
I think they effectively have this already, but possibly not as written-down as you’d like. As far as I recall, the latest upgrade components for the 13 will fit the first 13 chassis.
My gripe on future reassurance continuous to be on warranties, which are rather skimpy at present, especially for the US market. I am thankfully in the UK, where I get two years, and even that is not really enough given the price.
I mean… that’s the entire purpose of Framework’s business model.
The difference between upgrading a Framework Laptop and the modular nature of a regular desktop PC is that the CPU is soldered to the motherboard (mainboard) like with any other laptop, not socketed like a desktop motherboard. So, upgrading a Framework laptop involves replacing the entire motherboard, not just the CPU.
But other than that, it’s extremely flexible. If you had one of the original Framework Laptop 13s from 2021, you could upgrade it to one of the latest Intel Core Ultra mainboards. Other than that, you could keep the same chassis, screen, SSDs, expansion cards, and… well, maybe not the RAM. Only because the Core Ultra boards use LPCAMM2 RAM instead of SODIMM. Aside from the RAM situation, that’s still potentially 5 years of upgrades for the same laptop chassis.
The Laptop 16 line is much younger, so hasn’t gone through as may upgrades yet. But so far, I’ve switched mine from one of the original AMD Ryzen 7040 series to the Ryzen AI 300 series. And also replaced the Radeon RX 7700S GPU with the GeForce RTX 5070 GPU. Aside from that, still the same chassis I started with.
I don’t see them changing this ethos any time soon, since it would completely kill the entire point of their business model. But, I guess it depends on how future-proof the Laptop 16 chassis is…
In practice, it does seem like they don’t change component sizes on a whim, and they make new stuff backwards-compatible with the old stuff. I don’t think the guarantee you’re asking for here is one that any company would be willing to lock themselves into legally, but broadly speaking I don’t think you need to worry too much about component sizes changing or the stuff you buy today becoming impossible to get parts for in the future.
I have some gripes about some parts of their customer satisfaction operation but this specific concern I don’t think is really a big issue too much.
It would be more of a cost issue. Replacing the mainboard with CPU/GPU mounted isn’t a problem if the cost are reasonable.
If starting with a fairly high end CPU and a good amount of RAM, then your requirement for upgrading the Main Board will be easily 5 years away and possibly a lot longer.
This then leaves the more common items like a DGPU, new higher spec screen, updated trackpad and other auxiliary items plus replacement of existing parts.
@AlfInAussieland I get what you’re saying, if starting with a fairly high end CPU the requirement for upgrading the main board will generally be 5 years away.
My thinking is I would still like at least some guarantee, if Framework release any new chassis within my warranty period I am able to upgrade to the new chassis. This gives me 100% confidence that if anything changes I can upgrade.
Let’s say AMD release a bigger mainboard with crazy form factors (which probably won’t happen) and Framework then design a new chassis, I at least have the capability to move over at 0 cost aside from the upgrade parts.
Well that’s more compelling then. I like the DIY option, so I’m actually pretty happy if they at least cover the bare minimum thing’s e.g faulty Mainboard, Chasis manufacture problem etc. I agree I would like a longer warranty period, 1 year in the US market seems too short.
Failure rate for me is more important at this stage than backwards compatibility (possibly because FW has more question marks in the first category than the second). I like the company and their mission, but we’re all wanting reassurances on our expensive bits of kit!
Personally, I feel actions speak louder than words. The way they’ve conducted themselves with regards to the Framework 13 is enough for me to have faith in how they’ll conduct themselves going forwards.
That’s good to hear. I still think it’s very beneficial for a company to actively market these things and highlight them explicitly. There’s a huge customer base like me who aren’t familiar with a company’s track record but would happily buy a laptop if they were made aware of it and given those reassurances
What is being described in the original post is not for a company like Framework but for a local computer shop. These sort of arrangements used to exist decades ago for business clients (though it was almost always desktop machines)
Asking a company to predict the future of product and part availability comes with risk and hence more $$. It comes down to what someone is willing to pay for this assurance of convenience.
Framework has done a good job reusing platforms so far and likely will continue to develop this way into the future if the success continues.
Recently they have added the ability to get and additional 1 and 2 year warranty added to the standard 1 year warranty for those that regularly pay the premium for the warranty. Many businesses operate this way, and is sometimes a gateway to even being considered for a business pruchase that a 3-year warranty exists. This is mostly because of his business approach larger capitol purchases or longer term purchases to keep business operating.
The model that exists now is much of an ala carte style instead of a package style. Mostly because packages only work if the vast majority of customers are going to purchase them anyway otherwise it is more cost effective for the business and the consumer to keep it ala carte (I am probably butchering the spelling of this term).
A related topic to this is leasing devices, which again typically only makes sense for business purchases. I have even heard of companies that will “lease” a specific model of laptop and if before the end of the lease is up that model or parts for it are not available a whole different (but similar configuration) is made available if there is a defect with the originally leased device. There is a premium to pay for this convenience though and typically only businesses afford themselves this added cost to avoid downtime.
Some of these ideas sound good on the surface but after getting into the weeds of the actual costs/risks involved consumers would rather use the models that exist today.
This. I would much prefer an explicit statement/commitment on software support, rather than future hardware compatibility. With MacBook Air-like pricing for the Framework Laptop 13, this seems like a no-brainer to me. And, frankly, the place where I find Framework most lacking. The recent BIOS 3.20 debacle on the Laptop 13 is a prime, recent example.
Even better: if they want to make things truly repairable, they could take the lead in making the investment to make every bit of software and firmware (including UEFI/BIOS) fully open-source. Of course, it would be Framework alongside other individuals and companies in the wider community, but who better to lead this than Framework? It totally fits with their mission, and aims to crack the nut that makes hardware truly repairable and modifiable in the long run.
As one who has run OpenWRT on my various routers for years, my dream is to have something similar on my computer. Alas, I fear it will remain a dream.
I should think they want to, but the cost would be astronomical. One of the challenges of projects like CoreBoot is that licensing for various things remains locked down by corporations who wish to control the ecosystem. I just looked it up - the CoreBoot project has been running for 27 years, and it still does not have widespread adoption.
It does in Chromebooks. That isn’t insignificant when you consider the EDU market in the USA. But no, Dell and HP and whom ever don’t care enough to implement it.
There are plenty of niche sellers that have Coreboot support, many of whom have significant market overlap with Framework customers. Hardware and software freedom are two sides of the same coin. You can’t truly have one without the other.
As I said, many other smaller companies manage it. So it’s cop out to call it cost prohibitive to me. If Framework cared, they’d get it done. Maybe it would require a new board design to work with suppliers for more FOSS friendly webcam controllers or audio drivers. But it could be done. Who knows, maybe they have a contractual obligation to have a certain number of years of Insyde developed UEFI products. We will never know. But it can be done. The fact some random Polish individual is working to port the FW16 to Coreboot and making steady progress doesn’t paint FW in a good light to my eye.
It be more forgivable to me if the proprietary solution wasn’t so egregiously bad at times.
A point worth making, certainly. I was aware of that when I made my point, and yes, it’s Dell/HP/etc that I think I need to get on board.
Completely agree. It’s an excellent target.
I currently sit on the other side of the debate, but I do not hold that position strongly, and would be happy to be persuaded closer to your view. I suppose I reason it thusly: if the only org that has achieved this at scale is Google, with their supplier relationships, their legal muscle, and their astonishing financial power, then perhaps it takes all those things to achieve it.
I wonder if we’d be comparing like-with-like though. I recall that one of the challenges of open-sourcing the whole BIOS is that some radio hardware vendors had NDA or legal agreements for developers to sign, and signing basically meant that open-source was impossible, because they’d (probably) violate what was signed, and F/OSS developers were unwilling to take on the risk of personal financial ruin. Ergo, so the argument went at one time, one could reverse-engineer a bit of hardware, but the resulting driver would suffer as a result. Or in litigation-happy America, the reverse engineering itself would be pored over by corporate vultures attempting to find a theoretical legal violation.
So perhaps one can have CoreBoot, but not with Wi-Fi 7, or not with the latest Bluetooth audio codecs, or whatever other thing that users would want. I can’t point to specifics, and perhaps the only way we could know for sure is if Framework gave an official reason, and I assume that will not be forthcoming.
I’ve liked an idea of when upgrade time comes, just buying a second laptop; that way, I’ll have spare parts at the latest. Plus then if they suck at the business side and (or whatever,) go belly up, I’m covered. Mostly because I’m old, I won’t need too many upgrades past the 16s.
