- cross-posted to:
- framework@lemmy.ml
- cross-posted to:
- framework@lemmy.ml
It started with notebooks, but that wasn’t the master plan.
Before they do that, I kind of wish that they’d be a laptop company that makes laptops that have 100 Wh batteries.
It occurs to me: might Framework’s team need to focus on a few lingering laptop issues before moving on to new territory?
Yeah. Like, if you have only 60 employees, you should have a lot of room for growth in the laptop market. Does it make sense to start spreading out resources? I’d rather see them become successful in the laptop market than become a flash in the pan.
I don’t understand why companies keep putting such small batteries in laptops. Especially in the 16" laptop, anything less than 90 is just not acceptable in something that actually costs real money and isn’t an ultra thin device. Cheap garbage? Fine. You get what you pay for. Starting at $1700 pre built? No.
It does add something by way of weight, but I just can’t believe that the entire market out there honestly wants to have shorter laptop battery life over a slightly-heavier laptop. I mean, sure, all else held equal, I’d take a lighter laptop. And there’s some size where I don’t want a larger battery – like, I don’t want a Tesla Powerwall glued to the underside of my laptop. But at 100Wh, the current airline limit? Hell, yes, I sure as heck would rather have the longer battery lifetime.
And let’s even say that someone is completely fine with their existing laptop battery lifetime – like, they usually use their laptop plugged in, only have short stints away from a plug, like a conference room. Then you still can trade battery capacity for other desirable things. Stick a brighter screen on. Have a higher refresh rate. Have a more-powerful CPU or GPU and the fans to cool it. Have the capacity to drive external USB devices that may slurp power off the laptop’s battery. Restrict the maximum-charge level so that the battery’s lifetime is extended – batteries degrade rather more quickly if fully charged, and a number of devices have settings to permit them to be only partially-charged – without needing to cut into the capacity for a single charge.
I absolutely understand small-battery, budget laptops existing for people who strongly want the price to be at a minimum. Cut RAM down to a bare minimum, put in as little storage as possible, slash the battery to what’s tolerable.
I also understand that there are people who are hell-bent on ultra-light laptops, want everything at all possible stripped out. That’s fine too.
But surely there are people who don’t fall into one of those two camps.
I just can’t believe how hard it is to find 100Wh laptops in 2024. And traditionally, that wasn’t the case. You could find plenty of laptops with 100Wh batteries. Some laptop vendors let you choose the size of battery you wanted, and some even had dual batteries, one internal and a hot-swappable battery.
I get that USB PD powerbanks can help alleviate some of the problem, and I’m sure that that has to have been the factor causing laptop vendors to start slashing internal battery sizes, but they also aren’t the same thing as an actual internal battery. There’s no protocol for them to report their charge, so a laptop can’t report life remaining. Theoretically, one could have one pretend to be a UPS rather than a battery, and there are various protocols for those, though OSes don’t – well, Linux doesn’t, don’t know about other OSes – treat UPSes as another battery, so you’re not gonna get software packages incorporating it into their “time remaining” estimate in the dock, and I’m not aware of any USB powerbanks that actually try to use this route. It’s another box and cable to lug around, and another port on the laptop tied up.
Anything with over 100WH batteries would need airline approval before you can fly with it. This is why laptop makers rarely exceed this limit.
https://www.faa.gov/hazmat/packsafe/portable-electronic-devices-with-batteries
The next product should be a sustainable, not publicly traded company. If investors take majority ownership and IPO, Framework’s perceived mission will evaporate quickly in the inevitable search for ever growing profits. I sincerely hope Nirav and Co actually give a shit about the repairable product and retain majority shares. If not 👉👌…
Cool. How about a repairable phone with a headphone jack? I’ll be a day one buyer.
How about a repairable phone with a headphone jack?
The Framework 16 notebook doesn’t even have a headphone jack, only a USB-C to jack adapter.
It’s one of the slot in ones though right? so it doesn’t really count - it effectively integrated.
It counts because the adapter slot cannot be used for something else. It is different with the smaller 13 inch model.
It counts because the adapter slot cannot be used for something else.
I don’t understand this objection. I mean, sure, if you put an audio block in a slot for the headphone jack, it can’t be used for something else, but let’s say they omitted a slot and just put a fixed-into-the-case headphone jack there. I assume that you wouldn’t be happier with that.
I could maybe understand it if normally a headphone jack on a laptop went somewhere other than where the slots would be, but on my Thinkpad, it’s where the slots are on a Framework laptop.
They just give you the option to have or not have a headphones jack.
let’s say they omitted a slot and just put a fixed-into-the-case headphone jack there.
Or let’s not because that isn’t what happened in the 13 inch model.
Point is: Placing hope into a Framework phone with a headphone jack is IMO misplaced based on Framework’s most recent track record. Not even Apple got rid of headphone jacks in MacBook Air.
As someone with the 13, I would prefer the 6 slots on the 16 to the 4+headphone jack on the 13.
The best part of the modular slots is you can swap the side the jack is on for whatever works best or have it on both. (Through the magic of buying two of them.) Also if something goes wrong with the jack it’s significantly easier to replace.
As someone with the 13, I would prefer the 6 slots on the 16 to the 4+headphone jack on the 13.
If you think that getting rid of the headphone jack would result in more slots, you’re out of touch with reality. There would be an additional slot on the other side of the chassis where there is no headphone jack, so 5 overall. But there aren’t. The headphone jack has absolutely nothing to do with the number of slots. Audio output is a tiny component.
I don’t even use built-in headphone jacks anymore. I use external DACs with 2.5, 4.4 and quarter inch. Good thing for me that I can get an extra port while others can use a headphone jack still.
Modular ports would be great. I’d love to have two USB ports on a phone rather than a USB and headphone jack.
two USB ports
I don’t know if both could provide the same amount of power, and I’d bet – given that laptops don’t – that the phone would only be able to charge off one.
USB ports aren’t perfectly interchangeable today. If they can’t be made to be, I kind of wish that at least USB would have a set of standards for indicating power-in capable ports and ports by wattage capability. Like, reserve one color or symbol or something for one, one for another. Right now, device manufacturers just do whatever and sometimes don’t indicate what is what. I mean, yeah, it’s great that they’re backwards compatible, but when you have ports that don’t all behave the same, it’d be nice for it to be immediately-obvious what they do.
Also, while I’m dreaming, I’d like power-pack and battery capacity to be listed in watt-hours rather than amp-hours, given (a) that voltage isn’t universally the same and (b) that what people care about is about how long something can be run (“I have an N watt device and an M watt-hour battery…”).
given that laptops don’t – that the phone would only be able to charge off one.
My personal Framework 13 can charge from either the left or right side USB-C ports, and my work Lenovo Thinkpad can charge from either the dedicated USB-C slot, or the USB-C dock port. Point is, as USB-C gains more widespread adoption, limiting a device to only using one port for charging is becoming much less common.
That said, Framework does point out that not all the expansion bays can deliver/receive the same amount of power and they recommend (at least for the 13) to only use the rear ports for charging.
I’m pretty sure that a USB hub would work at least on Android, giving you as many ports as you want.
Repairable, open phone, you can load whatever OS you want. A phone that is more akin to a computer than a smartphone. A pinephone, but better.
If you don’t care about 3.5mm a FairPhone comes pretty close to that description.
Why not just use type c headphones?
The 3.5mm thing has always baffled me, it feels like complaining your pc doesn’t have a VGA port, except the thing you connect costs like a fiver
Just replace my perfectly good $200 headphones that work in my (old) phone, my Switch, my 3DS, my laptop, my iPod, and my work phone.
It’s so simple!
Seriously, even if you don’t use it, why are you so against others having the choice? The headphone *jack was the standard for decades for a reason. If my phone is low on power, I’d like to be able to charge it without disconnecting my music/podcasts…
But like, 3.5 to usbc is a 10 buck conversion. Tbh i see merit in double usb c over usbc and headphone jack, might be more doable too, the DAC prolly takes more space than an additional usbc
A dongle is a workaround. The headphone jack just works.
I hear you, but a usb-c has more uses than one, the only real problem with a dongle is now is that occasionally you need to charge.
A dongle is a workaround. The headphone jack just works.
Framework also uses a USB-C adapter. It costs 20 Euro: https://frame.work/products/audio-expansion-card
That’s great! But Framework also includes an audio jack built-in. As should everyone.
It’s not a work-around, a headphone requires a DAC and an amp. In fact, my phone has a crap DAC causing artifacts in the sound. It’s actually not to my benefit to have the jack because I’d get better sound with the external DAC which is transparent.
So the jack works, but the DAC you get can be whatever the manufacturer considers good enough.
DACs I can hear issues in:
My phone, my tablet, my desktop PC
DACs that are transparent to me:
My laptop, my $12 external DAC
Why not just use type c headphones?
I can think of several good reasons to use 1/8" TRS headphones (though as I point out in a lower comment, specifically for smartphones, space is at an extreme premium and I think that the majority of people probably don’t want to spend the space on an integrated headphones jack; it’d be better to use a small external adapter there):
But for the general case, not on smartphones, places where I have the space to stick a 1/8" TRS port, I am not very enthusiastic about using USB as an audio port.
-
1/8" TRS is a well-established standard. I mean, pretty much every device can handle it. USB for audio is in a number of places, but not even close to the level of 1/8" TRS.
-
1/8" TRS has been around forever. It’s electrically-compatible with 1/4" TRS, which has been around even longer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phone_connector_(audio)
The original 1⁄4 inch (6.35 mm) version descends from as early as 1877 in Boston when the first telephone switchboard was installed[9] or 1878, when an early switchboard was used for the first commercial manual telephone exchange[10][11] in New Haven created by George W. Coy.
USB is a young pup and already, physical USB-A ports are being phased out in favor of USB-C ports. I very much doubt that USB-C is going to be around ~150 years down the road the way that TRS has been. I can use a pair of headphones from the 1970s just fine with the latest device, and I can use an elderly radio from the 1970s with a new pair of headphones.
-
USB is a lot more complicated than 1/8" TRS. It’s got sleep states, trees, power consumption negotiation. That’s all room for things to break in interesting ways. I have, for example, a USB hygrometer/thermometer that sporadically triggers kernel errors on my computer when plugged in. I have a mouse that, for some reason, when plugged into a USB hub, uses a lower polling rate if plugged in when the system boots up (albeit not if unplugged and replugged). I have a USB audio DAC/ADC that decided to cut out the other day, for God knows what reason, until it was restarted. My last computer’s motherboard had a USB controller that supported a more-limited-than-required-by-protocol-USB tree size and had random devices not work if a sufficient number of devices were plugged in. None of this exists with 1/8" TRS.
-
Security. Same idea. I’ve got enough attack vectors into my devices as-is. People have definitely attacked bugs in USB stacks before; IIRC, that’s historically been part of how they attacked DRM on some consoles. 1/8" TRS is a dumb protocol, but that makes it safe. Same issue with USB for charging, though at least there you can get a “power-only” cable. You can’t have an “audio-only” cable.
-
USB sticks the DAC on the headphones. Why? Headphones don’t last that long; they’re disposable items. Put the non-disposable bits where they won’t die. A DAC can last pretty much forever. I have gone through many headphones over the years. I have never had a sound card or on-motherboard DAC or dedicated DAC die. The closest I came was once ripping the 1/8" TRS output on a DAC loose, which I could solder back into place. I have two USB-to-1/8"-TRS DAC/ADCs sitting on the shelf by my desk. They’ll probably be perfectly good twenty years from now.
-
Sampling rate issues. Can’t come up on TRS, because the DAC/ADC is on the device side. One of my USB DACs (this intended for professional audio) only supports a fixed sampling rate, the one at which it does internal processing; that makes sense, as a pro doesn’t want to have some device introducing resampling into their audio chain. Another, consumer one, can’t support a sampling rate as high as the professional one; it relies on the computer to figure out and do resampling if resampling has to happen above that rate. You can have software that doesn’t work with a given pair of USB headphones because it doesn’t like the headphone DAC’s supported sampling rates. If I have a pair of 1/8" TRS headphones, they work everywhere. It doesn’t matter whether whether they’re new or old or intended for the professional market or consumer market. Plug 'em in, they work.
-
I have one wired audio-emitting device – a pair of elderly Logitech USB speakers, not headphones – that has an integrated DAC. For some reason, the engineers who did that appear to have decided to make the volume control on that linear in electrical power rather than in perceptual loudness, which means that the vast majority of the volume scale does very little and there’s a tiny range that has a large impact. I don’t want to deal with that kind of craziness on some cheap pair of headphones.
-
Latency. 1/8" TRS devices normally – unless you’re intentionally building something into the system – have zero latency, because the DAC on the device is directly electrically driving the membrane on the speaker. Every time one sticks higher-level protocols in, it’s an opportunity for some bright-eyed, bushy-tailed engineer to start cramming more shit into the pipeline that adds latency. TVs are a great example of this – they used to have no latency, and then someone figured out that they could show ads and do other processing on the feed and that that’d be easier if they had a buffer of some video frames, and so they started inducing latency, unlike a computer monitor. Now you have “gaming modes” on TVs that try to mitigate the problem which had never originally been an actual issue with dumb TVs.
There’s an entirely-separate world of audio software and hardware for professionals who want to do real-time audio processing (on Linux, JACK; I have a USB ADC and some audio cards that permit direct passthrough of input audio to output) to try to avoid all the points in the pipeline that various consumer audio devices and software have inserted latency.
That doesn’t matter for some uses, like an MP3 player. It’s not the end of the world for a phone call. But it’s really obnoxious for some uses. With 1/8" TRS, I have no latency. With USB, I have God-knows-what latency.
-
Durability. 1/8" TRS is more-rugged than USB-C. I’ve damaged both before by pulling on cables at right angles, but micro-USB, mini-USB, and USB-C are more-fragile. That being said, I will give USB this: the damage tends to be worse on the cable side, as the plug is flimsy and will tend to give out before the socket on the device, whereas with TRS you can more-readily mess up the device. I would be open to the idea that having a standard magnetic breakaway connector would be more sane than either 1/8" TRS or any existing USB standard.
There are only three decent reasons that I can see to use USB headphones for the general case (like, not the extreme-space-constraint situation that smartphones see):
-
It provides power. Some people want active noise cancellation on their headsets. If you want to do ANC, you’re gonna need power one way or another. 1/8" TRS doesn’t have a standard for that (with XLR, for condenser mics, there’s a 48 volt phantom power convention that was added, but TRS doesn’t have it). AFAICT, devices that do this with a 1/8" TRS interface either rely on a second USB wire for power or use batteries.
-
When initially plugging in a 1/8" TRS plug, one shorts connectors and it can make a loud noise on the speaker membrane. Not an issue with USB, because the speaker membrane isn’t in that pipeline.
-
1/8" TRS doesn’t specify a single impedance everywhere. You can get very-high-impedance headphones that a DAC with limited output power can’t drive at a reasonable volume, even with the volume all the way up. That isn’t usually an issue for most people, but USB avoids the issue.
EDIT: Apparently I lied on the phantom power argument for using USB; according to WP, there are 1/8" TRS devices that do take phantom power (or something comparable; sounds like it’s not, strictly-speaking, “phantom power”):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phantom_power
Plug-in-power (PiP) is the low-current 3–5 V supply provided at the microphone jack of some consumer equipment, such as portable recorders and computer sound cards. It is also defined in IEC 61938.[16] It is unlike phantom power since it is an unbalanced interface with a low voltage (around +5 volts) connected to the signal conductor with return through the sleeve; the DC power is in common with the audio signal from the microphone. A capacitor is used to block the DC from subsequent audio frequency circuits. It is often used for powering electret microphones, which will not function without power. It is suitable only for powering microphones specifically designed for use with this type of power supply. Damage may result if these microphones are connected to true (48 V) phantom power through a 3.5 mm to XLR adapter that connects the XLR shield to the 3.5 mm sleeve.[17] Plug-in-power is covered by Japanese standard CP-1203A:2007.[18]
Also, regarding the power argument – USB power can be a source of noise leaking into what you hear.
USB power can be incredibly, mind-bogglingly dirty. I couldn’t believe it the first time I watched some video of some guy with an oscilloscope showing it. I guess it makes sense – I mean, keeps USB controllers and hub prices cheap – but there’s all kinds of electrical devices that have to deal with it. Anyway, point is, it’s the responsibility of the USB device containing the DAC to have a power supply that cleans that up sufficiently before feeding the DAC. It turns out that…they don’t necessarily do that. I have one USB-powered (not using a USB audio interface, or this wouldn’t be an option) mixer with 1/4" TRS output where using the USB power bus off my computer for power resulted in perceptible audio artifacts, humming and such.
This appears to be something of a not-uncommon problem, as I see various references to it online for other devices:
Some of you guys may be aware of my posts and other’s in the Topping D10 review thread. It seems that this DAC, like many audio devices that get their [power from the USB Bus, suffer from some noise coming from the USB port itself.
From my own experience, plugging the DAC into a Raspberry Pi 3B (+5v PSU and Ethernet connected) dropped the noise considerably compared to any port on the PC.
And if I can hear it, then I guarantee that there are USB audio devices that are inserting all kinds of garbage into the signal going out the output that are maybe less-egregious.
I wound up avoiding the problem with my mixer (well, at least to the point where I couldn’t hear it) by sticking the mixer onto an isolated USB charger, not on my PC’s USB tree. Now, yes, you can make a fancy power supply that avoids that, and it’s fair to say that the guys that engineered the mixer should have used a better power supply if they were gonna use USB power. But if you’ve got some guys engineering headphones and are under pressure to try to make the things as cheap as possible, because headphones are a disposable item, not to mention as light as possible because they’re gonna sit on your head, I’m not sure I’d bet on how much expense and weight they’re gonna put into the power supply feeding the DAC.
I haven’t tried quantifying how the power supplies on various USB DACs perform, though I would suggest that in a world where people are using USB audio rather than 1/8" TRS, given that you have headphone reviewers that cover things like frequency response, it’d be interesting to have a device that intentionally screws with the USB input power voltage and then have an oscilloscope or something attached to the leads coming off the magnet driving the speaker’s membrane and see just exactly how much glop from USB power is leaking through to the membrane at various dick-with-the-voltage patterns.
You forgot that 3.5mm is a stupid connector that makes you pass charged metal pieces over the connector to plug it in. You can’t power an anc chip or a dsp with it because it can’t do power delivery. That’s how you get headphones sounding different based on whether they are turned on
You forgot
I have two sections in my above comment talking about power delivery over 1/8" TRS.
-
At the time, there weren’t really many good options for replacement devices.
Using the charging port means listening to music and charging at the same time wasn’t possible.
Now we have split-cable dongles for power banks, and we have wireless charging when possible. It’s better but it’s not great; both have downsides, and accessories are more $.
Do they make type C headphones with a powerbank in them? Do I want a lithium battery that large on my head?
There aren’t many upsides for the consumer or the environment. Still seems to me like this isn’t even a lateral move. Internal components have gotten smaller and more efficient since, so that space could be reclaimed. I really don’t need my phone to be that thin, a phono jack next to the charging port would be just fine. The only real downside might be waterproofing but if you can make it work for the type C port…
A Framework phone with 2 modular Framework sockets would be amazing. I don’t care if it’s thick. Make it repairable and support Linux Phone OSes like postmarketOS and I would absolutely buy it.
I kind of wonder how viable it’d be to make a product that consists of:
-
A strong smartphone case, with structurally-strong “dock” connector at the bottom.
-
A “dock” – maybe in a couple different sizes – that links to this, has a pass-through USB-C hub, and adds stuff like a headphones jack. Maybe stick an integrated powerbank into any free space.
Smartphones don’t have standard dimensions at all, resulting in a zillion cases out there, but having the case with a standard “dock” attachment as a separate part would mean that you don’t have to build a million variations on the dock.
There are existing “put the smartphone in a dock” products, but they’re aimed at putting the phone on a desk, using it like a laptop. I dunno if there’s something comparable for just holding it. I haven’t seen anything like that.
From a purely-electrical standpoint, USB-C permits for a lot of devices to be added. But physically, on a smartphone, that means carrying other boxes. A “dock” that just extends the height of the phone would avoid that.
If the only thing you want is a headphones jack on a smartphone, I’d probably just get a small USB-C-to-1/8"-TRS adapter and leave it attached to the headphones; they can be pretty small.
I would like a phone that has a removable battery, user replaceable screen, and expandable storage. I think Framework would do well to add one or two of their modular slots on the phone since phones already have USB-C support. I would also love to see a phone keyboard similar to the PinePhone keyboard case but using USB-C instead of I2C. Such a case could also incorporate a USB-C dock, providing more Framework module slots or at least additional USB ports, video outputs, an extended capacity battery (using USB-PD to charge itself as well as the phone), and of course also being a tiny keyboard clamshell that fits in your pocket. It could also be nice if the phone could easily detach from said case for taking calls, as the PinePhone keyboard replaces the back cover and does not separate easily when needed.
-
While I personally like having a headphones jack and would be quite happy with a larger smartphone with a larger battery and headphones jack, a lot of people do care a lot about size. I’ve seen women in particular complaining about the fact that their clothing often has limited or small pockets, and large smartphones don’t play well with that.
The headphones jack was never designed to be incredibly space efficient.
That means smartphones have extremely limited space. Plus, if you want it to be modular – which is how Framework permits for the option to have a headphones jack on their laptops – you need even more space if you want to maintain structural strength of the phone.
I think that the best bet, if you carry headphones with 1/8" TRS plug, is to just leave a USB-C adapter plugged into the end, as that places the space on the headphones end, where there isn’t a space constraint:
This is minimalist, optimizes for size:
https://www.amazon.com/Digital-Headphone-Adapter-Converter-Samsung/dp/B07KJ87HYJ/
This has a passthrough port, so that it doesn’t tie up your USB-C port:
https://www.amazon.com/Headphone-Charger-Adapter-Splitter-Charging/dp/B0CSKF9XSF/
This has both a headphones and microphone port:
https://www.amazon.com/ZOOAUX-Microphone-Adapter-Splitter-Compatible/dp/B0CDX38TRN/
This has a headset jack, if you use a headset with integrated microphone:
https://www.amazon.com/Vcddom-Premium-Adapter-Headphone-Compatible/dp/B087CS4T4G/
Surely they are aiming for a repairable and modular smartphone eventually. That’s going to be super hard to do. My guess is their next form factor will be a tablet.
Tablet is almost free, just don’t have a hinge and have a touchscreen. Release as Chromebook, it will run Android applications
Why Chromebook?
To run Android stuff on x86
Linux can run Android apps since we have Waydroid too and it’s universal, no need for single device - single OS nonsense.
You can install Linux on their Chromebooks, so it would be good to have the choice. Some people will prefer a slightly more seamless Android experience and some people will prefer Waydroid
Chromebook makes sense. They could also do full on Linux. Star labs has a tablet coming out, so they didn’t have to reinvent the wheel for software (I assume, I haven’t tried touchscreen Linux).
Arm machines that are repairable to compete with Apple would be very cool in my opinion. Maybe team up with an integrator like sys76. Could be very cool. I’d personally line up to buy.
Would love it if they just had a shell that takes single board PCs
I was thinking about ARM at one point, but you’ve got a couple of major drawbacks.
-
Most ARM devices are SoC, and where they get some of their cost and power savings. That’s kinda the opposite of modular.
-
ARM running ARM binaries can be more-power-efficient than x86 running x86 binaries. An ARM platform can run x86 binaries via x86 emulation, but then your power benefits go away (probably get worse power efficiency). For Windows, I assume that there’s some form of OS-level emulation, but you’ve got a lot of binary software out there. For Linux, if you’re using all open-source software that can be rebuilt for ARM, and assuming that you have ARM driver support, then you could maybe run only ARM binaries. But if you want to, for example, use Steam, then you are going to be using binary-only x86 software. Now, okay, that depends a lot on your use case, but that may be a real drawback if you play games on the thing.
googles
That also sounds kind of like compatibility is still limited – they’re saying that some ARM platforms can’t do 32-bit x86 binaries, at least two years ago. Dunno if that’s still an issue.
-
I’d love to see them make other devices. But I want the company to actually be viable and entrenched before they spread themselves even more thinly.
They’re already having trouble releasing firmware and driver updates in a timely manner, especially for Windows users who can’t rely on driver updates packaged in the kernel.
But man I can think of a few cool Framework devices that I’d be into buying…
Tomorrow, it wants to be a consumer electronics company, period.
Patel won’t say — I only get the barest hints, no matter how many different ways I ask.
As long as the company itself doesn’t become greedy and doesn’t change it’s mission & vision i always support it
I’m curious to see where they go next. A lot of modern consumer electronics have repairability and upgradeability problems, but I also wouldn’t expect they’d be able to crack into the phone market as easily as the laptop market, so presumably there’s some more niche target they have.
This is the best summary I could come up with:
That’s one of the biggest reasons it just raised another $18 million in funding — it wants to expand beyond the laptop into “additional product categories.”
Framework CEO Nirav Patel tells me that has always been the plan and that the company originally had other viable ideas beyond laptops, too.
Framework might choose an “equally difficult” category or might instead try something “a bit smaller and simpler to execute, streamlined now that we have all this infrastructure.”
(Patel recently suggested to Jason Carman that Framework might adapt its marketing to reach more everyday audiences.)
The company’s $9 million seed round paid for the original 13-inch laptop design, which has carried on for three generations of components.
Today, Framework has about 50 employees, and it plans to expand to 60 before the end of the year, with “a bit of additional team growth” in 2025.
The original article contains 653 words, the summary contains 144 words. Saved 78%. I’m a bot and I’m open source!
cool - but if their product lines are modular and they try to break out of their niche market. whats to stop someone with a lot more capital from snapping them up (Dell, Lenovo, etc)?
Framework is a private company so they need to agree to be bought. I don’t know enough about the leadership to be able to say the likelihood of accepting an offer, but it’s not just a thing that automatically happens because Dell has a lot of money.
Money talks.
When the owners of a private company are offered millions more than they’ll likely make over the nest ten years, the odds of selling are very high.
Look at all the software devs that gets bought.
There’s also few but existing examples of people that resist the selling urge, like the VLC dev
There’s also few but existing examples of people that resist the selling urge
The story is literally about a funding round for Framework. Those investors don’t just give away the money. They buy a stake in the company.
Yes, the exception. That simply supports my argument.
And we’re talking about stuff we see. Again, I bet you’d never heard of FolderShare or UbiBoot before I mentioned them here, and those are just 2 tools of many that I’ve lost to acquisitions over the years.
How many other tools/products have companies quietly acquired and killed that we don’t know about?
VLC
Exceptions are possible. Money isn’t everything for everyone.
Exceptions are possible.
And being exceptions proves the norm.
I’ve seriously lost countless tools because MS acquired them and shut them down. Thousands of dollars gone.
I’m not holding my breath.
Nothing, but it’d still be a win for the consumer because then we’d have repairable/customizable laptops across the board?
We’ve also seen other brands aren’t interested in it because it’s harder to make smaller/thinner laptops when they need to be customizable. Also they make more money from having people throw out their old laptops and buying a new one.
More likely not.
Microsoft is well known for buying software companies to shut them down.
Foldershare was a product in 2005 that enabled you to share windows folders across the internet just like sharing across a LAN. MS bought them.
Same with Ubiboot - it enabled you to move a windows install from one machine to any other hardware - on boot it would reconfigure the drivers. Worked brilliantly.
I’ve used countless products over the years which no longer exist after they were acquired by MS. Things which don’t even exist within MS offerings. Clearly bought to be shut down.
This can’t be right because capitalism breeds innovation like they said! Right? …Right??
It does. Those were both innovative products.
Not sure why you feel the need to derail the conversation with your ideology.
Your conversation is about shelving products so other companies cannot compete.
If Dell or Lenovo or similar would actually make modular laptops, that’d also solve my problem.
The modularity makes it easier for them to grow slowly and incrementally. Slow and manageable growth is the key for a business to not overextend themselves to the point they get snapped up by the competition
I have a MacBook for work. Can’t wait to have a Framework as a personal computer.