I gave you a link right in the post. It points to a post right here in this thread! What more do you want?
Since March of last year.
Within weeks of purchase.
I would daresay very few weeks have passed where it’s been plugged in 7 hours a week, since, as I already mentioned, it was purchased for light, infrequent use.
Please note that Framework never said anything at the point of purchase about the device being unfit for infrequent use.
Per Framework Support’s instructions, I have on multiple occasions left the device plugged in for long periods. They used to tell me to do it for 24 hours, so I did that. Now it seems like the word is 72 hours, so I’ve done that. In all cases this brings the device back to bootable status… for a while. Then it croaks again.
Framework Support linked me to this thread, but still did not offer me a replacement ML1220. I had to directly say to them “are you waiting for me to officially request a replacement, because I’m officially requesting one” for them to actually offer me one.
If the product requires a minimum of 7 hours a week of constant charging to be usable, then it is defective. No other laptop on the market requires that.
If the product is defective, but that defect has been worked out in subsequent production units (which seems to be the case, from Framework’s statements), what they could “reasonably do” is recall the affected units and replace them with later-production units that do not have the defect.
They are not doing this, and if this conversation is any indication, they never will. Because why bother, if your customers don’t care?
All I can tell you is: I took a chance on Framework, and they have made me regret it. They sold me a lemon, and when I tell them that, they just ask me why I don’t like the taste of lemonade.
Even if I had an 11th gen board still, I’d pass on this mod. I have little experience with soldering and what little I have seems insufficient to perform this. This is where repair shops in customer areas can prove their worth. Seems to me that mod, while difficult shouldn’t take more than an hour or two. Shouldn’t be too costly to get it fixed then.
This is where I fall - I’m interested in the modification, but it’s something that I will farm out, as it’s likely beyond my ability to pull off. I have two machines that I may have it done on, depending upon cost.
Maybe ask Louis Rossmann, he’d be certainly able to do such a job easily (and his soldering quality would look much nicer than the example pictures). He also seems to like the Framework and repairability.
Yes this could be an option as well, you could add a small LDO that is rated for 21V input voltage with a diode on the output as shown in step 6 that is tied to the the main battery power rail.
You can attach it on the top side near the right side image shown above of step 6:
We’ve reached out to our repair center partner in Germany to understand why this packaging was used. Given the battery’s classification, it might have required meatier packaging for protection during shipment, but I don’t know for sure.
It’s not necessarily that easy:
“If you are a retailer, your customers can ask for redress under the legal guarantee provided by EU law - if an item:
[…]
doesn’t show the quality and performance normal in products of the same type”
Thus, it is quite possible for a product to be considered defective even if there was no specific, exact, claim that is found unsatisfied. But, of course, the big and massive “IANAL” in this one would be: how do we define whether this is, or is not, “normal” in products of the same type? I’d personally lean towards this going against the normal for laptops, though.
But the basic idea is: if you purchase a door knob, and it breaks the moment you twist it a bit hard, the fact that the manufacturer didn’t specifically say that it could withstand that torque does not matter if the “normal” on the market is that door knobs are fine with that. Imagine the girth of the spec sheets we’d need for basically everything we ever purchase otherwise… (Obviously, might be different in other jurisdictions.)
Anyway, for this whole part of the discussion, I’m reasonably satisfied now. My own case is definitely proof that Framework does, at least most of the time, not balk at issuing replacements. (Though something seems to have gone wrong in the situation you were responding to, for sure.) And the new procedure with supplying known good and known compatible RTC batteries when this is needed is plenty enough to make myself satisfied that FW is doing what is reasonably achievable to sort things out. It’s not optimal, but I don’t think there can be an optimal in this situation.
That is not relevant though. FW sells to EU customers under EU regulations, to UK customers under UK regulations, etcetera. Setting all of that up properly was part of the reasons for why it takes time to expand availability to more countries.
The alternative would be for customers to be the importer, in which case the customer would be personally liable for import duties and VAT (like would be the case if ordering from System76 in Denver, for example).
Looking through the rules for shipping lithium batteries at IATA, the “inner and outer” box thing is explicitly mentioned as a requirement, actually. It’s classified as a dangerous good, and thus needs to fullfill a bunch of requirements to make sure no careless handler can cause a lithium fire in the cargo/post compartment of an aircraft.
So personal guess: they took the smallest box they have stocked, put the battery in there with some packaging, then took the next box size that could fit the first. (The fines for violating this stuff seem like they can be quite painful.)
Confirmed the packaging is a requirement for shipping lithium-ion batteries (considered hazardous materials). While the outer box was a bit too large, the requirement is that there must be a smaller package within an overpack for safety reasons.
Important to note this requirement doesn’t exist everywhere globally, but for this shipment, it was required.
It is perfectly reasonable when said company has taken steps to be able to sell to you as if it were a local retailer. The reason this takes time for companies to do is specifically because it can get complicated, but companies (be they Framework, or Valve, or whoever else) still may consider it worth it because it can boost sales, give more satisfied customers (imagine the fury of someone not understanding that buying a System76 laptop comes with added Duties and VAT messing up their price calc), and so on.
So:
System76 case: unreasonable expectation, because you are importing privately.
Framework case: reasonable, you are technically purchasing within UK/EU/whatever, and should hold them to the same standards you’d hold your local Curry’s.
(And of course, in this case, Framework is both the manufacturer and seller. So that distinction does not matter. And they probably have either own staff, or consultancy firms on retainer, to understand and deal with this stuff and all similar matters, like VAT/import duties/etc etc.)
I would think Framework expects they’re subject to laws and regulations of the countries in which they’re selling. Was this not part of the reason they’re urging people not to freight forward to unsupported regions? To ensure compliance with laws and regulations in their supported markets?
