I feel like it makes little sense for FW’s lineup to be crowded around the smaller end of screen sizes, especially given the fact that the nature of the laptop will require more space to accommodate the modularity. Most would consider a 14"-15" class laptop to be about the edge of what can be comfortably be daily carried, it would make sense to just have the middle option be in that range.
Really what would be nice is if Framework could offer a 14" thin bezel screen that fits into the existing FW13 chassis, since it’s actually already larger in volume than the 14.2" Macbook Pro.
Really what would be nice is if Framework could offer a 14" thin bezel screen that fits into the existing FW13 chassis, since it’s actually already larger in volume than the 14.2" Macbook Pro.
I think this is really hard because of repairability. Most people could follow FW’s instructions and replace the screen, camera, or wifi antenna if one of those went bad. On the recent Macbooks, I think you have to replace the entire lid assembly (which is also pretty expensive). Framework machines will probably always be a bit larger and heavier than the latest Apple or Dell XPS for a similar display size. To me the tradeoff is worth it.
If they had it made a FW14 - somebody would write a post about “why Framework 14 instead of 13” or “why Framework 14 instead of 15”.
A 13" chassis is lighter/smaller than 14. And it’s clearly still big enough to have all the components being accessible and 4 interchangeable io ports - so it clearly works.
Also it’s an obvious alternative to the XPS13 which is a successful ultrabook.
In addition the 3:2 already adds some size compared with widescreen 13".
At the end of the day it’s a good compact size and you can have debates about any 12, 13, 14 or 15" decision.