Power button LED behaviour

and yet all we got was …

Not sure how that makes sense. The obsolescence of already paid for features continues.


Never had a red power button on my 11th Gen 3.17 anyway ??

Well it is about unifying the support information but I’m equally displeased that a feature is being removed rather than gained as a result of this chromebook…

The feature was removed in 3.17. You would get a red flashing light from the power button if the power was too low to boot.


I didn’t buy the chromebook. Unification based on your lowest end product is a unique strategy and one that alienates and punishes those that purchase any of your other versions. How far is the company planning on traveling down this road? Should we expect more obsolescence of our already purchased devices and their features in the future?


Not sure I would call the Chromebook “low-end” given it has basically the same internals as the 12th gen offering…and the same chassis…and the same display…

In fact, given the supposed battery life improvements and support for Coreboot, it has features that my 12th gen lacks. Exactly how does this qualify as low-end? The price?

Yes, I would say you can expect it to continue. They removed the g-sensor from the BIOS a while back and the same attitude was taken then.

1 Like

That is normally how these things are tiered out, I would say it’s an industry standard but it’s really more of a market-wide thing. I would also throw in there the missing feature set of some of the parts for the chromebook (missing LEDs and fingerprint sensor in power button for example), another classic way to distinguish between product tiers, included features.

Which feature? Coreboot? Because while I would prefer that over the current Insyde version I doubt it would be a value add in terms of BIOS features. In the context of the chromebook its use is over-shadowed but the locked down nature of both the hardware (Titan chip) and software (ChromeOS) on that machine.

I asked two questions about the company’s view on matters like this going forward.

Correct, I’ve been consistent in my view that this is not customer friendly behavior and is in direct conflict with their stated goals of reusability and repairability. Part of their business model is selling parts for older boards. How is systematically, slowly disabling features not going to affect their usable life-span?

Now your just projecting, just like the g-sensor conversation it’s not about the individual sensor or in this case the led color but rather the behavior. I would like clarification if the advertised support period for these products is based on this type of obsolescence.

In that request you actually make the suggestion yourself of adding the option to change the LED colors to suite ones own liking. The framework representative’s suggestion was to change the colors to blue/red which the OP agreed with. How does the actual change implement this request?

The tone used in asking those questions is hostile or at the very least could be interpreted that way.

Features. Plural. Yes, Coreboot is one of them but also the improved speakers (which I could purchase myself as an upgrade but then I’d be left with speakers that would be of no use to me and that nobody would want) and the advertised battery life improvements courtesy of the Google collab (which may or may not be replicated using TLP or other software on Linux, IDK what they did).

If we go by price then the Chromebook model is decidedly high-end compared to the rest of the Chromebook market. Actually, looking at the product pages again, it isn’t even the lowest cost model. The regular 12th gen i5 is the lowest cost model and 13th gen pre-order is also cheaper. So on, on balance, given that it has some features that the PC version lacks and vice-versa, they are comparable imo.

This was an error on my part. Removing the red LED in no way is related to that request as it was related to the blink codes on the side LEDs, not the power button. Mea Culpa. (that request should still be addressed if anyone from Framework reads this!)

Expect the behavior to continue. I personally see nothing inherently wrong with what they have done. They are trying to unify the product stack as much as possible, either for a consistent UX across products (seems likely) or for reductions in dev time (not deving unique firmware for each product but this seems unlikely). What they have done this far does not come across to me as any kind of obsolescence and the seemingly overzealous response seems to be, imo, a logical fallacy.

I agree that removing features and product behaviors that were available at purchase time is not favorable to the customer, nor to Framework’s brand. I hope FW is wise enough to stop the trend at relatively minor items like the g-sensor and LED behavior. There’s great things coming from this company, but unfortunately it only takes one “aww sh*t” to erase hundreds of “attaboy” moments.