"Imagine being an engineer at a company at Apple, and it being your job to design the mechanism that makes it so that machine cannot start up unless the chassis is fully sealed. Apple spent actual fucking money making sure that product would not work unless it is in the exact chassis they shipped it in."
That goes beyond not caring.
Honestly, I would not be surprised if Apple 'invented' the idea of 'integrated dongles' before their next keynote so they could sell you a $95 usb 2.0 port.
I'm willing to bet real money that they did.
While there are questionable practices by Apple and many other machine producers, what you can't argue against is that in limiting the hardware that MacOS has to work with, they're able to deliver a level of stability and user experience that you don't get with Linux.
Sure, it would be great if we could replace the batteries, if we could upgrade the memory, and easily fix broken parts, but that isn't the company's ethos. The company produces devices that are plug and play, high grade consumer electronics. Nobody forces us to buy these products.
Anyway, that being said, the framework machines look super interesting and if they were UK available, I'd probably get one for a non-critical Linux-based workstation.
As if choosing a $1k+ computer to use for years was equivalent to choosing the flavor of ice cream scoops.
The "voting with your wallet" argument doesn't work when there's several variables in play, and the optimal configurations don't exist on the market. Like e.g. I'd like to buy a computer that's just like Macbook, except with repairable/swappable/upgradeable components. Or a phone that's just like iPhone, except with replaceable battery, a headphone jack, and repairable home button. But I can't have them - even if I'm ready to pay a bit extra, and if I'd welcome a thicker device. These options literally don't exist. Nothing similar to them exists. Particularly on the repairability front, every vendor is choosing to just not offer it.
I am against billboards in space but I would make an exception for this quote.
That's the thing, making something plug and play and mostly "driver-free" would be very hard to almost impossible. Framework laptops look amazing but they will require at least a bit more maintenance and knowledge, and that is fine too.
1) How do we enforce that at smaller scales?
2) How would we prevent our regulation from squashing innovative solutions to problems, or enhancing safety in critical applications?
I agree that Apple shouldn't have to support random mods / hardware components / etc and that their selling point is "it just works".
But then again, they don't have to be dicks about it. If they're able to detect that the hardware has somehow been modified, maybe just show some message along the lines of "you've modified the hardware, we're not supporting this anymore, you're on your own" instead of bricking it.
Realistically, if your threat model is government secret services, and you're using unmodified consumer grade electronics, then you're in 'danger' no matter what. You can't effectively mitigate a threat at the state level using resources produced under the watchful eye of the same state. All they have to do is ask the producer to swap out the device they gave you with a device that comes compromised out of the box. And that's assuming the tech is perfect. Most likely they just hire someone to defeat the countermeasures. However many resources Apple has, I assure you even the most janky state has more.
Commenter above was saying though that the device's anti-tamper tech would save you from state level attacks. I'm just getting at the fact that that's not going to work, since if a proverbial 'they' want to take you out, there's other ways to do so you can't overcome. Just a few examples that came to me about how easy it is to foil anti-tampering measures.
> It seems obvious to me that if you're being targeted, tailed and tracked and probed, you've already lost.
Depends on which government agency watchlist you are. If you are some sort of Islamist terrorist, the tools that are open to the government are far more capable than if you are some sort of low level drug dealer.
I find it ridiculous that people build threat models around organisations with almost unlimited resources that will only care about you (enough to tamper with your hardware) if you have done something very, very wrong.
Security isn't a product.
And it's also about replacing broken components without having to ditch the whole laptop.
I'm really excited about how Framework could potentially shake up the whole industry!
As soon as Framework releases an AMD model I'm on board.
It won’t. The industry used to be like that back in the day before Apple proved that most people don’t want too many choices.
They proved that taking away choices is still better than the shitshow their competitors are running.
Apple proved that a few simple product names are less confusing than literally 6 different "brands" of laptops from a single company. That doesn't mean people don't want choices though, they just don't want to feel like they're getting trolled by badly designed websites throwing all the possible laptop configurations in their face. Even if you know what the specs mean it still feels like a major waste of time to try and compare the 20 devices on the screen. I want to configure every detail of my laptop, not 2 details on one of 200 laptops.
Apple also proved that making devices difficult to upgrade, maintain and repair is harmful for everything and everyone other than Apple.
Almost nobody wants that, but the good news is that enough people do that framework exists.
I would understand it if a manufacturer offered some ultra high-end model with custom storage like in the PS5. But if the Framework laptop can have swappable RAM and SSDs with almost the same thickness as a (insufficiently cooled) Macbook it's obvious why that stuff is soldered in.
Can you actually find a quote for this? I’m quite skeptical that any such lie has been told.
What they want is to know they are getting a good deal and that they aren't buying a lemon, something that cannot meet their needs.
What Apple did is decide they should really distinguish on classes of identifiable hardware differences, eg. a better larger screen for a "pro" class, have good/better/best distinctions within that, and customization for those who are picky.
I assume the intersection between people who have particular hardware requirements and those who do not understand their hardware requirements is extremely small these days. Apple doesn't sell computers which really fall short these days, so I'm able to focus the conversation on usage, user-impacting hardware features, and long-term budgeting (e.g. planning even as far as the replacement for the machine they are buying)
Also, anyone who says “it’s felt like I have to compromise on the hardware options” is an outlier by definition.
It makes sense from a business sense to have fewer models with small changes between them. You could have tech workers that assemble every custom order. That costs a lot more than a simplified inventory of a few different models that are already pre-assembled, with no hardware customization.
Please refrain from insults, or at least make an effort to justify this if you think it’s valid.
> The general populous/average consumer prefers simplified options. They aren't tech savvy as many here are.
Isn’t that exactly my point? The industry serves the general consumer. The framework laptop serves a niche.
If I understood it correctly, you can buy replacement parts only from Framework. They will have supply issues, and customers will be unhappy.
I guess if the laptops don't ever break, or if the customers' need for replacement parts is more theoretical than real, it could work out. Or they somehow manage to get over the small, niche manufacturer hump and become a Lenovo with massive scale. I doubt that's gonna happen.
RAM, wireless, and storage aren't chained to Framework, and are effectively the only parts you can reasonably buy for any existing laptop in the current day.
I would not be surprised if battery and screen replacements start popping up, but that's just a guess not something I'd bet on.
That Framework will be the only suppliers of parts that other laptops don't even attempt to make replaceable is not a worrying situation, it's a hopeful one.
They've also open sourced the modular components so people can develop their own third party compatible parts.
The problem would come in if a Framework-specific part breaks, but at least those generally seem to be pretty simple (apart from the motherboard, at least).
People care about Right To Repair; that's why the FTC has been pressured into action recently on the matter (not that I entertain any hope that that bunch of bought-and-paid-for bureaucrats will actually achieve anything.) Framework has blown a vast hole through the false arguments offered in opposition. One must simply care. That's all it takes. Every manufacturer that has opposed RTR has the means and talent to do at least as well has Framework has done, and probably better. They just don't care.
Thankfully the vestigial remains of our free market are sufficient to run the experiment.
And that's why "free markets" will never solve this. (And that's whether the "free" in free markets means freedom from regulations, or freedom for people to participate in the market).
IMHO this is why the European system of strong regulatory bodies tends to work better than the US system of "wait for a customer to experience damages, then recoup through the courts, and then the companies learn their lesson."
A competitive market isn't a marry-go-round where every idea gets its turn under the sun for all eternity. It's an arena where some rise and many perish. In the '90s and '00s, many ideas fell through, many companies collapsed, and many technologies become outmoded. What has come out of that is the sealed computer of today.
I have. I note that large numbers of people build PCs from components and that this market is large enough to be a primary concern for a constellation of manufacturers and has been for decades. You can buy an IC with 1200 contacts and install it yourself on the kitchen table. There is no other segment of the microelectronics world were this level of commoditization exists and yet it has stood the test of time. Transferring this behavior to mobile machines seems like an inevitable and long overdue step to me.
"Historically laptops were never as repairable as desktops."
History is a poor yardstick here. A number of forces have emerged that change the landscape. Among these are amazing design tools that enable a startup to go from zero to a complete, shipping modular design in 18 months (establishing a defacto standard, btw), tooling that delivers rapid fabrication in small volume, standardized, high performance serial busses that enable simple yet powerful architectures, robust solid state storage devices and the integration of some difficult components into CPUs. It used to require the resources of major manufacturers and their proprietary knowledge and capabilities to pull off marketable mobile designs. That era has passed and the commodity era is here.
"The adhesive-sealed laptop that you resent"
I do not resent monolithic products. I own several. I will buy more. I resent the lack of a choice. I expect that modular mobile machines will take their place among the equipment I acquire, and that these will become the major focus of my concern, whereas the monoliths will be relegated to ancillary tasks.
"What has come out of that is the sealed computer."
And they won't go away. The question is how much room is there for modular systems. I believe there is a lot. I imagine a Newegg filled with commodity mix and match mobile components from a vast number of vendors.
Time will tell.
There's already no "standard" laptop design, just a set of desirable properties people want. And there's already no push to converge; there are many laptop vendors. There's plenty of room for a new vendor with different priorities (like modularity); there's more room for such a vendor than there is for one more undifferentiated vendor.
However, people do keep in mind this still may not result in better third-party repairability - it may be things like easier reclaiming of components off of boards by the manufacturer to put into refurbished swap-out units.
That just leaves you with entrenched companies doing the bare minimum for compliance, and lobbying for loopholes to protect their own market positions.
Maybe they think they don't until one piece of their MBP fails and they have to pay Apple to replace 90% of their laptop.
* analysts consider whether the cost > profit, if not then continue doing the same thing as before.
A desktop you built using standardized components you sourced from a competitive market with a plethora of alternatives specifically designed for easy assembly. Should any component fail you can obtain a replacement and perform the repair yourself. Doubtless these affordances are a part of why you chose to assemble you're machine yourself.
You do indeed care. The inability to extrapolate this to laptop machines seems obtuse.
I don't doubt that a huge market of interchangeable parts made this easier. But it's important to separate the ends from the means here, when it comes to customer concerns. The customers that want customizability and upgradability are a vanishingly small slice of customers. (Just as are the ones who want to run Linux, and that small slice does include me.)
Can you not imagine the vast market of people that might want a laptop not loaded with OEM crap ware? Because that is exactly what could emerge if Framework manages to establish a market of commodity mobile components.
I went the basket route because it required less research for me, because I just wanted to get to my end result as quickly as possible.
Grander goals about establishing ecosystems that serve other eventual end goals is not the way that most money is spent. (Though I do spend my money that way in other areas, such as with climate action, the PC market does not matter that much to me.)
You're a potential customer of this product, your cognitive dissonance on the matter notwithstanding.
Honestly, I'd rage if I had to throw it out together with the perfectly good CPU, GPU/VRAM and maybe half the RAM and pay for a used replacement board with all of those integrated.
Or what, buy a rework station and risk damaging them or having them work improperly due to shit soldering skills?
I guess I could learn to fix the board itself. But that's pretty hard, there are no schematics, no components for most laptops, failures are not evident and one component can lead to a cascade of failures across the board. A used board was $100. Now they're ~$500 because there's a CPU and GPU there.
My next computer will be a desktop in a handcrafted case (I'm also trying to fit a Li-Ion battery/UPS between the PSU and components).
This should totally be a thing. I wish it was a thing. It doesn't even have to provide hours of runtime, just needs to be enough to handle the occasional stupid California brownout.
The battery will fit in an empty PSU case, I just need some custom cables and connectors for the passthrough, my biggest problem is charging and switchover. Looks like I will need a custom board for that. I thought it'd be easier heh
I will still need a laptop away from home and/or as a portable display, that'll be one of my old 17 inchers or the cheapest one I can get (Haswell gen lol).
I mean, I've met people that only wear underwear once or twice before throwing it away, too, but I wouldn't say that's normal. People would generally rather replace a drive, processor, ram, or screen than spend 10x as much on an entirely new system. They don't because the manufacturers make that option difficult or impossible.
People didn't love VCR/TV combos, and people don't love this. Manufacturers love this.
Reminder that Apple isn't the problem. Their customers are. I know movie quotes are seriously lowbrow for this audience, but somewhat relevant here, and correct:
"That system is our enemy. But when you're inside, you look around, what do you see? Businessmen, teachers, lawyers, carpenters. The very minds of the people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that system and that makes them our enemy."
Not to Godwin the thread, but this absurd apologia for anti-freedom products from the standpoint of convenience and apathy reminds me of the old quip about Hitler making the trains run on time.
I hope a decade from now you love the soul-crushing Snow Crash-esque dystopia your choices will have created, because you will have absolutely no moral authority to complain about it.
I also don't really care to replace individual components in my systems, but being able to upgrade laptop hardware without throwing away the chasis and storage seems pretty nice to me.
If it were a big energy hog (it's not), then it may make sense to put it out to pasture and scavenge the parts for others.
The exception is my keyboard, is like my toothbrush, if toothbrushes could last for two decades. That I will keep and move to the new computer, as keyboard technology is not advancing.
For laptops, I see even less utility for upgrades than for a desktop, but perhaps that's just me.
You can move your keyboard to a new computer because you are able to detach it without melting half the device with a heat gun. With laptops it's not that easy. When the MacBook keyboards broke all the time a few years ago, a keyboard replacement meant also replacing the speakers, battery and touchpad. Not for any technical reason, but because Apple doesn't like screws. The MS Surface Pro and Surface Laptop couldn't be repaired by anyone, not even MS themselves - if a single $20-30 part fails you have to spend $1000 again. Doesn't sound like a great deal if you ask me.
You might not need or want upgrades and maybe you're lucky and nothing ever breaks. But having the choice only comes with upsides.
Framework means you can custom-build it, just like your desktop. Reparability aside, that alone is a milestone.
My last desktop build is still going strong nine years later. Swapped out a broken motherboard, upgraded to OCed DDR3, and stuck in a PCIe card for NVMe: good as new.
I upgraded my monitor and changed 2 keyboards(I am hard on them) with a laptop if you fuck your keyboard you probably have to use an external one or hope that replacing your laptop keyboard is cheap enough and you can find a spare.
If my laptop was a Framework laptop, I'd just need to buy a pretty inexpensive new port and swap it out. It's a pretty big deal, in my opinion.
I care. I often swap out parts. My family and friends care, because I help them swap out parts when needed, especially during critical failures when they need it working ASAP and can't risk some corporation formatting the hard drive for no reason.
And my coworkers care because they're fellow techies and do this stuff, too.
Users care!
what they want is:
To sell you a laptop with a current cpu and memory.
If you are "price insensitive" they will allow you to get a better cpu or more memory for a significant upcharge.
next year, they want:
To sell you a laptop with a current cpu and memory.
They do not want you upgrading the cpu or memory yourself
They do not want you to add next-year's cpu yourself next year.
1/ A lot of them (most?) had 8Go of RAM. 16Go is rare and 32Go even more. What year is it?!
2/ Most have soldiered RAM without an additional slot.
Just being able to use my own NVMe disk in something like a Framework translates into savings for me because I don't need a huge disk in my laptop and can reuse one that's too small for my server or desktop.
You’d never see Dr. Ian Cutress of AnandTech or Steve from GamersNexus pulling this shit.
Of course he makes much more money than both of them combined. Make no mistake that he is an entertainer and a businessman.
LTT also really always had the proper balance. Sponsored reviews are marked, sponsored segments are marked, and they are not holding back on negative reviews for long term channel sponsors. They totally ripped into Intel again and again for the failure to compete with AMD, and at the same time have Intel sponsor new hardware upgrades for team members in a sponsored mini-series. Totally fair.
Of course Intel did a big marketing push right as their products were the least competitive, and I'm sure LMG was paid large. Putting that kind of stunt in the same league as GN reviewing a product from a company that previously sponsored them (which is, of course, all that LTT does) is simply ridiculous.
"Balance" is such a weasel word in this context. They're playing both sides, plain and simple.
AnandTech quit doing SSD endurance testing as soon as vendors started selling trash TLC and QLC. Is that a coincidence? Can you really trust them?
There's a point where you need to put some trust in reviewers because the industry is set up to make them dependent on the manufacturers. However, there's a huge difference between traditional reviewers where employees are doing reviews and new age reviewers where influencers are doing the reviews.
People like Linus and Steve have way more incentive to put their own integrity over short term interests like pleasing a manufacturer, so it's very unlikely you'll ever see them shilling for anyone. Getting caught doing that once would ruin their brand (and credibility) because they are their brand.
In other words, there are no scape goats in the influencer space so they have way more incentive to be completely honest and transparent.
I remember when Tom's Hardware was new and I think the current generation of influencers / reviewers are going to obliterate the traditional media companies that have turned into affiliate marketing shills.
In the videos Linus does breaking down LMG's revenue, about a third of it comes from a tiny fraction of their audience - merch and direct subscriptions. I'm sure it's a similar chunk if not more for GN through modmats, mousepads, and Patreon.
Even if they sold out their integrity and still got millions of views, it's that "hardcore" audience they can't really get back. In an enthusiast space where a large chunk of the audience are professionals with disposable income, it's a lot to lose.
I haven't seen anything from Linus or Steve to suggest that's the only reason they care so much about their integrity, they both seem to genuinely care, but y'know parasocial relationships etc.