Contrary to you @Rylan_Kletnieks, the more I think about this, the more I think it makes sense.
I guess I’m the last holdout remaining to present the case.
Would you hypothetically pay an extra $50 for a mainboard that was exactly the same,
except in addition to all its current features,
it also has 4 GB of ram and 32 GB of storage built-in?
The answer for me is clearly a yes:
I would add two 8 GB DDR sticks (for a total of 20 GB) and whatever m.2 2280 I have available.
The smaller, soldered storage would be used for the system files and the larger, removable device for user files.
That soldered 4 GB is likely to be faster than any DDR stick that I could reasonably buy.
The theoretical maximum memory of this board is increased from 64 GB to 68,
but for most users, it would be a more significant difference of 8 → 12 or 16 → 20.
I could also forego buying any DDR sticks and recoup that added $50, and still keep the option to upgrade later.
Granted: if the RAM fails, it might bring the whole board down with it…
but that can be said of most of the components on the board,
and RAM is not (to my knowledge) a high failure-rate part.
Yes, you’re limited to currently available memory speeds,
but by the time we want to upgrade to faster memory,
it will probably also be worthwhile to upgrade the processor too.
SSDs, on the other hand, do have a high failure rate after regular use –
but unlike the memory, a dead soldered storage device doesn’t mean the death of the whole board.
An OS can be booted from the NVMe device instead, provided the BIOS is engineered to allow this.
Wear on the built-in SSD would be greatly reduced, since it would only be written to on system updates.
Separating my important user files from the OS seems desirable.
The devices would be unlikely to fail at the same time; in the event one fails, either your data is lost but your system still works, or your OS isn’t booting but your data is safe.
Yes, that’s a similar advantage that you could get from two m.2 slots, which arguably would be preferable, but that uses much more space so might just not be realistic.
Consider too the proposed re-purposes of the board.
When you upgrade your Framework laptop, what do you do with the old mainboard?
The old mainboard needs some kind of memory and storage to be useful.
Typical examples are things like TV streaming setups, Pi-holes, and other such home devices.
32 GB would be plenty of storage for many of those tasks; 4 GB might even suffice for memory.
If you don’t need to buy new components to re-use the board, you eventually spend less money in total.
@BarriBurt presents the argument that I don’t want to use 10-year old memory on my computer.
That’s true, but I don’t want a 10-year old processor either, and that’s soldered in.
It would seem a strange choice to me to upgrade the memory of an ancient CPU, even assuming it’s compatible.
The TLDR of this post is that I would happily pay somewhat more for a Framework mainboard that had all the same features as the current options and also included a small amount of RAM and storage.