I actually have a Keychron K8 and a carrying case for it that fits in my laptop bag for this reason. I wore out the keyboard on my System76 Serval WS before I switched to just carrying a keyboard everywhere.
Edit: specifically I wore out the c, v , u, y and s keys. The rest generally still work AFAICT.
Enough. 
Work laptop is the work laptop. They provide it, I use it.
Daily driver MacBook Pro, which is getting replaced with the FW16.
Gaming PC.
Then there’s the old stuff :
Couple of retro ThinkPads, and a PowerBook G4.
Oh, and the old Pentium 4 gaming PC from 2000 that comes out occasionally.
When was the last time this happened?
About 6 months ago…
I don’t want to dunk on Framework, but I have said previously that not building the headroom for these ULP switches was a bum move on their part. The 16 is a power users machine and not trying to be ultra-portable like the 13.
The 13 garnered discussion of creator-built mechanical keyboards so there is no doubt that as a business they would have been aware of this desire when designing the 16, and it is regrettable they did not choose to make provision for them. If I had my tinfoil hat on I’d say they didn’t want to lose control of the aftermarket of keyboard modules by allowing anyone to manufacture them from off-the-shelf parts.
I can’t believe that in the slightest. They have opened up every part that they can to the community and 3rd-party makers. Their github is packed with data. Only items not released or planned to be released are those covered by NDA and / or created with partners with other licensing issues. Full mainboard schematics are even available to repair shops, I presume if they check out as legit and sign the partners’ NDAs.
For the keyboard, they are trying to bring us single-key modules, so we can create any ergonomic or crazy layouts we wish
Yeah, I’m pretty sure it’s just that the market has spoken, and it demands thin laptops.
Yeah. We have to remember that those that just can’t live without a mech keyboard make up a small niche. I can’t blame Framework for not adding thickness just for that small niche. Framework is not big. They need to appeal to the majority of buyers. And a lot of people will compare spec numbers, adding thickness will make it look worse vs Framework’s competition.
Just because you put the blueprints out there does not mean it is buildable by anyone, as we cannot just knock up a membrane style keyboard to order. Look at “google Android”, supposedly open source, but how possible is it to run alternative “distros” on your 'phone?
Those “single key modules” have not appeared at the time of writing. If and when they do so, they will probably be inferior to the Cherry ULP (who know a thing or two about keyswitches) but you will have no choice but to use them. The only benefit is that Framework make the money out of hobby creators not Cherry.
I cannot buy the assertion that a mechanical keyboard will have unacceptably increased the thickness of the 16" machine. I concede the 13 is a different matter. The Cherry ULP discussed is after all marketed to, and used in, gamer and “desktop replacement” laptops. Leaving that option on the table by providing the required headroom need not even increase the cost to produce, as they could have continued to provide a membrane 'keeb as standard.
I think it is necessary as somebody who cares about Framework’s stated mission to hold the firm to account when they make puzzling decisions. Unfortunately they have to work within the same constraints as any other firm, and their financial backers may well push them towards practices they not want. It is for the rest of us to keep them on the right path.
Would this be the same “market” that has been telling us for decades we want non-repairable laptops with a three year service life?
I do. On all my devices. The base of android is indeed open source and is called AOSP (Android Open Source Project). Many, many alternative distros, called ROMs, are made from AOSP and have zero closed source or proprietary google code.
I run LineageOS on my main phone, and different roms on my backup phone and tablet. The easiest devices to install alt roms on are actually google’s own pixel phones, as well as google tablets. Very easy to load an alt rom on them.
There are also some OS options not based on AOSP. 13 Open Source Mobile OS Alternatives to Android
Dude, the FW16 isn’t even out yet.
Every ounce of effort right now is going to the actual laptop, not a nice-to-have bonus. Shipping dates FW 16 - #199 by Jordan_Long Why would single key modules be released before the laptop itself?
I believe Cherry MX ULP could be done. It’s not that they absolutely can’t fit, just that there’s precious little room for the PCB and the keycaps. One would have to get unconventional, especially for the keycaps.
Or one could probably shim the hinges up a smidge and give yourself more room.
I feel attacked!
I’m sorry. I didn’t mean to call you small! I’m sure you are very large and imposing! 
So imposing in fact, that out of sheer fear, Framework will develop a mechanical keyboard asap. Thank you, on behalf of all mech keeb fans!
Hah, if only.
I mean, it’s a 16 laptop, but it is still portable, I trust?
But it seems to be clear to you that the FW16 is too thin to support a mechanical keyboard.
Taking a quick look across the laptop space, it’s clear that laptops which prioritize thinness outsell laptops with a mechanical keyboard by an massive margin. If there’s a tradeoff to be made between them (which, if there’s no room for a mechanical keyboard, there clearly is), they would be crazy to make it thicker, appealing less to the majority of the market, just so they could appeal to a small niche in their first offering in the segment.
I guarantee the people manufacturing the Framework keyboard know a thing or two about keyswitches as well.
As someone who firmly prefers a chonky laptop with an RJ-45 port easily fitting in the side, a docking port, and a battery that can be swapped with no tools, I don’t find a new foray into the larger laptop space being absurdly thin the slight bit puzzling.
I may think it’s too conservative, and I may think it’s not ideal for what I want, but from looking at what sells today, it’s the obvious, safe choice.
So during the course of this thread you have gone from rebutting my criticism of the keyboard space lacking headroom for discrete switches with “It is open hardware and there will be discrete switches from framework so everything’s cool for creators”, to “The computer would be undesirably thick if it had to accommodate discrete switches” to “I think the Cherry ULP will fit anyway, albeit with some jigery-pokery”. If indeed so, then why not provide sufficient headroom to start with? We are talking fractions of a millimetre here, and I thought we were past the stage where we were meant to covet narrowness at all costs. Even apple could not gaslight their users forever into believing the “butterfly” switches were the best choice.
The response from @Deuce is even more telling. We apparently agree that we would like a deeper 16" model but Deuce sees it as his duty to defend every decision Framework makes as if ordained from on high. I believe that is unhealthy and see it as more valuable to offer constructive criticism if I can do so.
I thought Framework was for those who have looked across the “laptop space” and rejected the prevailing orthodoxy? But we indeed see that framework built the 13" first and the expandable 16" later, they presumably expect the former to be their main seller even after the 16" comes out. I broadly agree with the keyboard choices on the 13" machine as an ultra-portable. Yes, I would have liked firmware driven keyboard controller like the 16", which seems a community driven feature that makes the omission of “mechanical” keyboard compatibility more glaring.
There’s a major difference between understanding why a decision was made and “defending it… as if ordained from on high”.
see it as more valuable to offer constructive criticism if I can do so.
You think that opening the conversation by suggesting that “they” may be trying to corner the Framework 16 keyboard module market was valuable constructive criticism?
If indeed so, then why not provide sufficient headroom to start with? We are talking fractions of a millimetre here, and I thought we were past the stage where we were meant to covet narrowness at all costs.
When the market research shows that, then we’ll be past it.
I thought Framework was for those who have looked across the “laptop space” and rejected the prevailing orthodoxy?
Framework is for a less unsustainable design. Everything else is second to that goal and is mostly an effort to “not suck”.
You’ll find this quote here:
The conventional wisdom in the industry is that making products repairable makes them thicker, heavier, uglier, less robust, and more expensive. We’re here to prove that wrong
(Emphasis mine)
Why yes I do, it is hardly unusual. For over 100 years Gillette have sold razors below cost and made their money selling the blades. Same with Nescafe and their Nespresso pods, and Nintendo and their game cartridges (or whatever games come on these days). As somebody keen to flex your knowledge of product marketing to the rest of us, I am surprised you are unaware of this common wheeze . It is probably good business, but not in line with FW values, IMO. And that is why I air it.
What market research proves an extra mil at most to make the 16" model compatible with laptop switches from the likes of Cherry, would ruin it? And is this more plausible than speculative intention to keep the keyboard design proprietary, or at least hard to replicate by third parties? I link to Cherry’s product to allow other readers to decide for themselves; note that 3.5mm is very close to the purported overall FW key module thickness.
My dog in this fight is a desire to see an Atreus (or similar staggered column) ergo design brought to market. Making it harder than needed to prototype or build modules at low volumes reduces the likelihood this will happen. We are dealing with very small measurements here which is what makes the decision not to accommodate commercially available key switches quite frustrating.
The reason we know it’s not something Framework is trying to do is because Framework has released detailed specifications and firmware for how to build your own keyboard without any license fees. They’ve already made it impossible for them to lock down the keyboard market through extra steps they’ve purposefully taken. They’ve stated that they’ll not block 3rd-party keyboards, and have proven that by making it possible for a 3rd-party to sell a compatible keyboard before they even ship their first laptop.
Thinking that they specifically looked at the keyboard switches you wanted, intentionally made the available dimensions just barely too small, and that prevents all 3rd-party keyboards is just silly. The keyboard I want can be built thanks to what Framework has released. A TKL module will exist as well, and likely not be an official product.
It doesn’t matter, Framework has specifically and publicly made it clear that their intent is to make a repairable, thin laptop. Any thickness added is counter to that goal. Presumably, in design, every fraction of a mm that could be shaved off was. Leaving completely unused space inside the closed laptop for the small sub-niche that needs to use a specific switch would be crazy.
It’s is way more plausible that they set a goal of making a thin laptop and that they didn’t add extra space because that would be the exact opposite of that goal. Part of the reason is that they’ve had a statement clearly indicating they were designing thin laptops on their website for years before they announced the 16" version. The other part of the reason is that they’ve specifically released all the information needed by third parties to replicate their keyboard in advance of samples of that keyboard being available.
There’s clear evidence that building a thin laptop is a design priority, and there’s clear evidence that the keyboard design is as open as possible. Taking that and concluding that there was a speculative intention to keep the keyboard design proprietary/hard to replicate is just ignoring all the evidence.
I have a layout I want as well, and I’ll take a full-throw tactile switch over a mushy short throw every time, but I’m not more upset that I (maybe) can’t use a Cherry MX ULP than I am that I can’t use a beam spring. It doesn’t fit without changing the hinges, and is therefore not suitable. Designing parts for laptops is hard and always involves trade-offs.
You’re inventing a conspiracy to prevent the use of a specific switch and ignoring all evidence that they clearly don’t really want to be in the keyboard business.
Anyway, I think my position is clear. Framework took the correct steps to achieve their stated goals. It’s fine to ask Framework to consider making it easier (or possible) to use the switch you want, but your assumption that they purposefully made it difficult or impossible to use your preferred switch is childish.
Framework seems to attract people who just can’t understand that the company needs to compete in the market to live, balancing features to appeal to as many as possible. And that means their laptops can’t be everything to everyone all at once. Just because it wasn’t built exactly to one’s particular wishes doesn’t mean it’s some great conspiracy or personal slight against you.
I suppose it’s “give someone an inch and they’ll take a mile”. Framework shows that they care about their users, providing a lot of resources and openness, and a few people will take that and then loudly complain that it’s not good enough, nowhere near good enough. Because the laptop doesn’t cater exactly to their every single desire.
Not the first, won’t be the last.
Well said.