> If I'm generous, the extra flexibility in a Framework would save me $200 every 5-8 years. Which leaves me in the hole, further if I'm less generous.

I think this statement is heavily underestimating the value of a repairable /user serviceable computer.

The value proposition of user serviceable equipment is the same as the value proposition for open source for software. It gives you the FREEDOM and the ABILITY to make the changes you want to make IF you want to make them.

But as it is with open source software, most users are never going to be directly editing the code for postgres, Linux, or any of the other 1000s of open source software that they use on a daily basis - but IF they choose to do so, they can.

> A Framework lets me keep the same screen which is cool

Probably the last thing I'd want to keep. Screen technology still moves forward at a decent pace. Screens are disposable, backlights fade over time, pixels get stuck, screen burn-in.

The only universal thing I can think of about machines I've upgraded over the years (not laptops, of course) are cases, power supplies, CPU coolers, and as long as the form factor hasn't changed/there hasn't been significant progress, HDD.

Everything else goes with the system. New CPU meant new socket, which also meant new RAM. Need to get rid of that old video card, of course.

I think a major clarification is in order here. I'm not talking about just the framework here. If anything, the problems with framework is the direct result of the absolutely stupid industry-wide product design culture and market tastes. You can see all the major open-ish hardware designers grappling with similar issues - pinephone, System76, Librem... I will explain later why it is so. But here is the point - we need a major shift in both the product design culture and the (non-existent) consumer culture.

Back in the days of modular desktop PCs (which is still alive, but barely holding on and slowly fading away) about a couple of decades ago, there would have been immediate and sharp backlash if any hardware manufacturer pulled the tricks that they do today - soldered-on RAM modules, thermoplastic glue instead of screws, riveted keyboards, irreplaceable ICs that are paired using crypto, permanently locked firmware, etc. That would have shook their sales enough for them to care. Right now, these 'features' lead to short-life hardware (because any broken parts mean everything has to be thrown out), landfills full of e-waste, frequent new purchases, etc. It does nothing good for anyone or the ecosystem, except filling the pockets of trillion dollar MNCs.

The advantage of such consumer pressure is that you'd have a vibrant spare parts market with much more choices. Many people here are complaining about how poor the spare parts market is. Had the consumer choice been more on the side of modularity and reusability, that problem wouldn't have even arisen. It wouldn't be just framework who manufactures such things. In fact, you wouldn't even be able to decide the brand name of the laptop as a whole. Another point is that you're still thinking about laptops as a unit, instead of as a collection of parts. And that would be the case if the industry spent more resources and effort into it. It doesn't have to be bulky as you imagine either. Hardware interfaces, housing and fasteners would have evolved to a more compact, universal and standard form, much like how a dozen different ports were replaced by USB. Right now, you're thinking about how you can transplant parts from your old laptop to the new one. Instead, you could swap parts of a laptop one at a time. Currently, the CPU and GPU cannot be swapped like in a desktop PC. You have to make do with replacing the whole motherboard now. But has anybody demanded replaceable CPUs and GPUs for these? Why are those precluded?

Now about why framework, System76, Librem, Pinephone, etc have problems making such devices. The choices they get is abysmally small. The OEMs and component manufacturers (mostly from China) have created this supply-chain system where they involve in huge-scale exclusive contracts. It's simply too hard to get a fully compatible chipset without signing an NDA that effectively ruins your chances at making open or modular hardware. Those companies are doing an impressive job at making these hardware with what they have.

You may want to dismiss me as too idealistic and dreaming about what could be, instead of dealing with what it is now. But let me point out why we never catch a break. The tech community takes an obstinate and imprudent 'all or nothing' approach to everything. 'Framework is not good because it's too costly, modules are not good enough, GPU cannot be replaced, yada, yada'. Nobody is willing to settle for anything less than perfect. But you need to realize that you are not in the bargaining position here - you don't hold the cards. Your choices are dictated by someone else who is more resourceful and patient in making short-term compromises and playing the long game of shaping the market and making insane profits at the end. The only way to get your way is for everyone to unite and show even more resolve and patience in demanding what you want. That means putting up with some inconveniences for now. But everyone will be rewarded at the end with the perfection you demand.

I've seen it from Netflix, Steam, and several others. People simply love having all their eggs in one basket, and will stubbornly support it long past the state it starts to exploit them. They support security over freedom every time, consistently.

It's a bit crude, but it's also why I'm not surprised AI is catching on so quickly. People will happily outsource their ability to "think" if the product is convincing enough to them. We already spent the last decade or 2 trying to maximize the dopamine hits from social media. Now there's a tech that can (pretend to) understand your individualized needs? Ready to answer to your Beck and call and never makes you feel bad?

Not as cool as thr VR pod dystopia, but I guess I overestimated how much stimulation humanity needed to reject itself.

Even more unimaginative dismissals are not what I wish to debate. I have already explained why this argument is disingenuous at best. Apple's model isn't the best. It just appears so because these companies never put significant effort into better alternatives and the consumers never demanded it. I keep trying to point this out - this is a repeated misdirection tactic employed by these companies and their fans.

> I don't think this was understood charitably. The point of the parent is that in practice, when it comes time to update one part, you'll also want to update all or most of the others. So, in practice, you will not see any of these savings.

It's frustrating to have to repeat the same point again and again. That is not correct at all. I have exercised it in practice. What you refer to as in practice are the deliberately crippled and limited options that are available in the market today.

> The potential savings may be significant, but for most people, it may be the case that the actual savings are unlikely. A modular, upgradable laptop may be a niche product for people who want to upgrade each part more frequently, not less.

Completely disagree. That's not what's seen in practice.

Aren't part of the cost Yet :) actually upgradeable components were priority when motherboards and CPUs were too expensive to upgrade, it was ram ssds and memory that were changed out...

Soon, now actually, it is the inverse. Ram, ssds, high speed network, consumer GPUs, and anything else that needs a modest amount of DRAM.

AMD sockets last nearly a decade, and power supplies come with up to 13-year (or longer) warranties. It's just that it can be difficult to stay the course for the sheer amount of time it would take for you to realize those savings.

A quality PSU can often last 10 years and multiple builds. Quality in this case just means "has things like over voltage protection, proper wiring included, decent caps, and decent voltage regulation" not "was really expensive". E.g. that $140 85 W Seasonic Focus tier is quality in this regard, the $80 no-name 850 W PSU is what people warn about, and the $400 Seasonic Prime titanium rated PSU is mostly for those scrutinizing VRM designs or wattage limits on the cables to the GPU for their overclock goals.

It's common to upgrade your PSU anyways though as it seems like parts wattages only go up over the years (particularly for the +12v rails) or one may want to cycle out the old system completely for reuse/resale. Generic advice (since most people buy cheapo no name PSUs and upgrade rarely) might be to say to replace just to be on the good side of every situation... but if you're one that knows you got a quality PSU or likes to upgrade your build every other CPU generation, then swapping out the PSU every time is likely a waste.

If the PSU is that crappy, then yes. But these things are supposed to come with over voltage protection, current limiters, resettable fuses etc at the output. Even bad ones are not supposed to cascade their failure to the rest of the system.

But let's think of a better option. What if all spare parts came with an expiry date and a service schedule? On top of giving us a baseline to retire the part, the manufacturer will also be forced to divulge an indirect quality score (useful lifetime) and compete with others on it. If this sounds too fantastic, we sort of had this in operation half a century ago. I don't think a lot of people remember that era.

I've been on the same PSU for I think 13 years now, its currently running my Ryzen 7 3700x and RTX4070 desktop. I suppose if its not a great quality PSU or its already suspected of causing issues then replacing is a good idea.