6 ms·

This is the challenge of trying to do good - no matter how much better you are than the default, for some subset of users you will never be good enough, and the

by npunt 4y ago

This is the challenge of trying to do good - no matter how much better you are than the default, for some subset of users you will never be good enough, and they’ll complain just as loudly about you as they do the default (far worse) option. Unrealistic purity tests ruin all sorts of attempts to make the world a better place. We should celebrate attempts to change the status quo.

cmeacham98 4y ago
The problem I have is that if these requests are unrealistic, they should just say that. As far as I can tell, what they're currently doing requires more effort to vet repair shops and create an NDA than if they just dumped the schematics online. Now, maybe there's a great reason for this. Maybe they're under NDA and can't reveal part of the schematics. Maybe releasing these schematics would make it super easy for a competitor to completely steal everything. Maybe they are going to release the full schematics and we're waiting on their engineering team and legal team to review them. The problem here is that Framework hasn't communicated any of this. Every time they're asked they don't seem to give any reason and just dodge around with "we'd love to release the full schematics". Well, why haven't you then? Please tell us.
- TheSpiceIsLife 4y ago
  One might even imagine someone would write something like this in an effort to reinforce the parents the point. The strongest interpretation of "we'd love to release the full schematics" the subtext: but we can't / don't want to due to "reasons*, none of which are likely to satisfy everyone, so we'll try to avoid that discussion as it would help distract us all rather than getting on with our goals.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - somethoughts 4y ago
    I feel its likely the marketing verbiage w.r.t. repairability was targeting the average "prosumer level repairability" - which is probably more closer to an iFixit level of repairability (i.e. more on the torx screw and less on the solder/depop spectrum of repair) [1]. That said in response to these HN and Youtube threads - perhaps they could update it to be more specific about their definition of repairability as well as why schematics will be or can't be released. In the future - if Intel is the issue - it might be smart to design some additional modularity and relegate the proprietary Intel stuff to some sort of system on module (like the RPi4 Compute Module) and increase the amount of open source able main board. [1] https://www.ifixit.com https://www.ifixit.com
    - stormbrew 4y ago
      It seems likely that the 'module' would just cover the entire space of the board as-is if they did this with a modern intel system anyways, especially when there's also SODIMM module slots, an m.2 slot, and 4 full tb4 ports on the board. All those high speed bus interfaces are probably tied directly into the CPU, the chipset, or both, and so are largely gonna be covered by any confidentiality agreement intel imposes on vendors of those parts. The Pi4 CM is a much more modest device by comparison. It has no ram expansion and only a few lanes of PCIe, USB3, and some other fairly standard IO interfaces otherwise. Realistically, the frame.work mainboard is the compute module. You plug it into the equivalent of a CM carrier board with the TB4 ports.
  - cmeacham98 4y ago
    It's not just about the reason, but other details too. Does "we'd love to release them" mean "we just mean more time", "there's a 50/50 chance we'll be able to release them", or "we'd love to but it's a long shot". If they are going to come out, will it be in weeks, months, or years?
    - needle0 4y ago
      Them not mentioning it, despite mentioning it making their optics better, pretty much seem to point to the NDA not even letting them discuss the stuff you stated.
  - Dylan16807 4y ago
    > due to "reasons*, none of which are likely to satisfy everyone, so we'll try to avoid that discussion Being so vague and listing no reasons doesn't seem helpful to me.
  - tyrfing 4y ago
    The strongest and most likely interpretation is that they simply don't own the IP, and it's based on a licensed reference design. It makes zero sense for a startup like this to have done all of it from scratch - just copy everything possible and innovate the actually interesting parts. If they don't own the design, they can't say that due to NDAs, and the best they can do is a maximally broad interpretation of "repair shop".
    - moring 4y ago
      IMHO, the best they can do is being honest about what they can't say due to an NDA. For example, if they can't say that they don't own the design, they might say "due to an NDA we cannot say who owns the design". This goes a long way to earn trust.
      - jimnotgym 4y ago
        It depends if the NDA allows them to discuss it at all!
        ClumsyPilot 4y ago
        These has to be a limit to this madness, can I get an NDA that does not let you state your name to anyone
        vel0city 4y ago
        There are limits to contracts in the law. There would have to be some form of consideration to that contract. If you gave me a million dollars a year but I just can't use my current legal name in casual conversation, I'd take that contract. If you just wrote a contract that said "you can't use your name, you get nothing" its an unenforceable contract under US (and most of the developed world's) contract laws under the principle of consideration. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consideration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consideration
      - TheSpiceIsLife 4y ago
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- donthellbanme 4y ago
  The veting of repair shops is a ploy. The watch industry used to vet repair Watch Repair shops on the guise of "Quality Assurance". They would require Watchmakers buy their expensive cleaning machines, and a bunch of other pricy tooling, and requirements; in order to procure parts. 90% of watchmakers couldn't get a parts accout, and the watch companies loved it. it meant more after sales/warranty business. This was because they didn't want to sell parts to anyone. They wanted to do the repairs For a few years, certain Watchmakers kept up with the demands from Rolex, and The Swatch Group. We were just happy to be able to get parts. About 15 years ago the watch companies just decided not to sell parts to anyone. That whole Vertical Intregtation consumer ripoff. I am very leary of any company that wants to vet their repair shops for anything, other than maybe medical equipment. They will supply the schematics, but they don't want to make it easy. (I'm pretty sure I'm hellbanned again?)
  - onli 4y ago
    It is not them though, they clearly just follow rules here that they have to obey. But I think it is a great idea to compare it with the watch market - independent repair shops there have neven seen like a bad idea, and the schematics are pretty much always open - in that the movement is just there, accessible - and the watches are copyable. Which happens a lot though - might not be the most convincing argument if that were the fear.
- autoexec 4y ago
  > Now, maybe there's a great reason for this. Maybe they're under NDA and can't reveal part of the schematics. Maybe releasing these schematics would make it super easy for a competitor to completely steal everything. Maybe they are going to release the full schematics and we're waiting on their engineering team and legal team to review them. I guess I'd question 'fear of competitors' being a "good" reason, but I'd agree with you otherwise. Regardless of what the need for secrecy is, unless it's "we're forbidden by the state" and there's some kind of national security letter involved or "We're doing something illegal and we'd get sued if it were known to the public", why not just tell the public why they can't release the full schematics? What else would prevent someone from talking about why they couldn't talk about something? Refusing to even explain themselves just makes it all seem more suspicious.
  - vel0city 4y ago
    Sometimes NDAs prevent even revealing the scope of the NDA, because knowing the scopes of things is then potentially exposing information a party doesn't want known by others. Sure, maybe Framework could just go and state those things, but they're potentially burning their relationships with key partners that might be necessary to make the product at the moment. I'm not arguing this is a good thing, just trying to share some perspective.
yjftsjthsd-h 4y ago
I think the difference is in the (perception of) honesty or hypocrisy. If Apple jealously guards details about their hardware and impedes repairs, it's bad but it's expected. If Framework guards details about their hardware and impedes repairs, it's in direct opposition to their claimed mission and the reason people were interested, and it feels like a betrayal. (Obviously this varies; not everyone cares about the same things or to the same degree. But I suspect that's this is where a lot of the dissent comes from.)
ekianjo 4y ago
> . We should celebrate attempts to change the status quo yes but... no. if you go half way to do something you will not reap much of the expected benefits. in certain use cases hard thresholds are important to consider. in this case half available schematics is not good enough to do repairs even if its better than no schematics at all.
- jimnotgym 4y ago
  But half way to something here is demonstrably better. The computer opens with ordinary tools and the parts are modular and available! It was also stated above that this repairer did not ask for the schematics.
mlyle 4y ago
> and they’ll complain just as loudly about you as they do the default (far worse) option. This is optimistic. They'll lampoon you and call you hypocrites for claiming to be helpful but not doing the zillions of things they have in mind, while giving the unfriendly incumbent a pass.
- morekozhambu 4y ago
- Springtime 4y ago
  I'm not sure who they is in this context but the person who runs the channel linked in the topic and who is normally in the videos has consistently praised Framework for their efforts, including the release of these public schematics, regardless of being partially complete, and has reminded viewers how it compares to other brands that don't release anything of the kind for helping repair shops. In a recent video they were considering buying a second Framework laptop of their own just to have it displayed in videos as essentially free advertising. If some of these characterizations are about them it seems misplaced tbh.
  - mlyle 4y ago
    > I'm not sure who they is in this context Same "they" as the parent-- "for some subset of users you will never be good enough, and they’ll complain just as loudly about you as they do the default (far worse) option." Not implying that it's the channel's stance. On any criterion: ease of repair, privacy, security, good citizenship, etc: there's some subset of critics who treat the best behaved companies and individuals worse than the worst. These are the people who e.g. give Apple a much harder time on privacy than Meta.
arinlen 4y ago
> (...) no matter how much better you are than the default, for some subset of users you will never be good enough (...) What if it is really not good enough? Should everyone just accept someone's claims that they addressed a problem when they might be actually making it worse by pretending it's solved when it isn't? I recall the days of old when no laptop supported linux, and the impact there was when a model showed up with claims it indeed supported linux. I bought one based on those claims (don't recall the make-model, might have been an Acer) and I still recall the disappointment I felt when I discovered critical stuff like wifi did not worked at all. There were a few comments like "It boots, right?" followed by "for some subset of users you will never be good enough" when critical problems were pointed out, but the truth of the matter was that a purchase was made based on a feature that was advertised but was in fact not offered.

by npunt 4y ago

cmeacham98 4y ago

The problem I have is that if these requests are unrealistic, they should just say that. As far as I can tell, what they're currently doing requires more effort to vet repair shops and create an NDA than if they just dumped the schematics online. Now, maybe there's a great reason for this. Maybe they're under NDA and can't reveal part of the schematics. Maybe releasing these schematics would make it super easy for a competitor to completely steal everything. Maybe they are going to release the full schematics and we're waiting on their engineering team and legal team to review them. The problem here is that Framework hasn't communicated any of this. Every time they're asked they don't seem to give any reason and just dodge around with "we'd love to release the full schematics". Well, why haven't you then? Please tell us.

TheSpiceIsLife 4y ago
One might even imagine someone would write something like this in an effort to reinforce the parents the point. The strongest interpretation of "we'd love to release the full schematics" the subtext: but we can't / don't want to due to "reasons*, none of which are likely to satisfy everyone, so we'll try to avoid that discussion as it would help distract us all rather than getting on with our goals.
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- somethoughts 4y ago
  I feel its likely the marketing verbiage w.r.t. repairability was targeting the average "prosumer level repairability" - which is probably more closer to an iFixit level of repairability (i.e. more on the torx screw and less on the solder/depop spectrum of repair) [1]. That said in response to these HN and Youtube threads - perhaps they could update it to be more specific about their definition of repairability as well as why schematics will be or can't be released. In the future - if Intel is the issue - it might be smart to design some additional modularity and relegate the proprietary Intel stuff to some sort of system on module (like the RPi4 Compute Module) and increase the amount of open source able main board. [1] https://www.ifixit.com https://www.ifixit.com
  - stormbrew 4y ago
    It seems likely that the 'module' would just cover the entire space of the board as-is if they did this with a modern intel system anyways, especially when there's also SODIMM module slots, an m.2 slot, and 4 full tb4 ports on the board. All those high speed bus interfaces are probably tied directly into the CPU, the chipset, or both, and so are largely gonna be covered by any confidentiality agreement intel imposes on vendors of those parts. The Pi4 CM is a much more modest device by comparison. It has no ram expansion and only a few lanes of PCIe, USB3, and some other fairly standard IO interfaces otherwise. Realistically, the frame.work mainboard is the compute module. You plug it into the equivalent of a CM carrier board with the TB4 ports.
- cmeacham98 4y ago
  It's not just about the reason, but other details too. Does "we'd love to release them" mean "we just mean more time", "there's a 50/50 chance we'll be able to release them", or "we'd love to but it's a long shot". If they are going to come out, will it be in weeks, months, or years?
  - needle0 4y ago
    Them not mentioning it, despite mentioning it making their optics better, pretty much seem to point to the NDA not even letting them discuss the stuff you stated.
- Dylan16807 4y ago
  > due to "reasons*, none of which are likely to satisfy everyone, so we'll try to avoid that discussion Being so vague and listing no reasons doesn't seem helpful to me.
- tyrfing 4y ago
  The strongest and most likely interpretation is that they simply don't own the IP, and it's based on a licensed reference design. It makes zero sense for a startup like this to have done all of it from scratch - just copy everything possible and innovate the actually interesting parts. If they don't own the design, they can't say that due to NDAs, and the best they can do is a maximally broad interpretation of "repair shop".
  - moring 4y ago
    IMHO, the best they can do is being honest about what they can't say due to an NDA. For example, if they can't say that they don't own the design, they might say "due to an NDA we cannot say who owns the design". This goes a long way to earn trust.
    - jimnotgym 4y ago
      It depends if the NDA allows them to discuss it at all!
      - ClumsyPilot 4y ago
        These has to be a limit to this madness, can I get an NDA that does not let you state your name to anyone
        vel0city 4y ago
        There are limits to contracts in the law. There would have to be some form of consideration to that contract. If you gave me a million dollars a year but I just can't use my current legal name in casual conversation, I'd take that contract. If you just wrote a contract that said "you can't use your name, you get nothing" its an unenforceable contract under US (and most of the developed world's) contract laws under the principle of consideration. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consideration https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consideration
    - TheSpiceIsLife 4y ago
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
donthellbanme 4y ago
The veting of repair shops is a ploy. The watch industry used to vet repair Watch Repair shops on the guise of "Quality Assurance". They would require Watchmakers buy their expensive cleaning machines, and a bunch of other pricy tooling, and requirements; in order to procure parts. 90% of watchmakers couldn't get a parts accout, and the watch companies loved it. it meant more after sales/warranty business. This was because they didn't want to sell parts to anyone. They wanted to do the repairs For a few years, certain Watchmakers kept up with the demands from Rolex, and The Swatch Group. We were just happy to be able to get parts. About 15 years ago the watch companies just decided not to sell parts to anyone. That whole Vertical Intregtation consumer ripoff. I am very leary of any company that wants to vet their repair shops for anything, other than maybe medical equipment. They will supply the schematics, but they don't want to make it easy. (I'm pretty sure I'm hellbanned again?)
- onli 4y ago
  It is not them though, they clearly just follow rules here that they have to obey. But I think it is a great idea to compare it with the watch market - independent repair shops there have neven seen like a bad idea, and the schematics are pretty much always open - in that the movement is just there, accessible - and the watches are copyable. Which happens a lot though - might not be the most convincing argument if that were the fear.
autoexec 4y ago
> Now, maybe there's a great reason for this. Maybe they're under NDA and can't reveal part of the schematics. Maybe releasing these schematics would make it super easy for a competitor to completely steal everything. Maybe they are going to release the full schematics and we're waiting on their engineering team and legal team to review them. I guess I'd question 'fear of competitors' being a "good" reason, but I'd agree with you otherwise. Regardless of what the need for secrecy is, unless it's "we're forbidden by the state" and there's some kind of national security letter involved or "We're doing something illegal and we'd get sued if it were known to the public", why not just tell the public why they can't release the full schematics? What else would prevent someone from talking about why they couldn't talk about something? Refusing to even explain themselves just makes it all seem more suspicious.
- vel0city 4y ago
  Sometimes NDAs prevent even revealing the scope of the NDA, because knowing the scopes of things is then potentially exposing information a party doesn't want known by others. Sure, maybe Framework could just go and state those things, but they're potentially burning their relationships with key partners that might be necessary to make the product at the moment. I'm not arguing this is a good thing, just trying to share some perspective.

yjftsjthsd-h 4y ago

I think the difference is in the (perception of) honesty or hypocrisy. If Apple jealously guards details about their hardware and impedes repairs, it's bad but it's expected. If Framework guards details about their hardware and impedes repairs, it's in direct opposition to their claimed mission and the reason people were interested, and it feels like a betrayal. (Obviously this varies; not everyone cares about the same things or to the same degree. But I suspect that's this is where a lot of the dissent comes from.)

ekianjo 4y ago

> . We should celebrate attempts to change the status quo yes but... no. if you go half way to do something you will not reap much of the expected benefits. in certain use cases hard thresholds are important to consider. in this case half available schematics is not good enough to do repairs even if its better than no schematics at all.

jimnotgym 4y ago
But half way to something here is demonstrably better. The computer opens with ordinary tools and the parts are modular and available! It was also stated above that this repairer did not ask for the schematics.

mlyle 4y ago

> and they’ll complain just as loudly about you as they do the default (far worse) option. This is optimistic. They'll lampoon you and call you hypocrites for claiming to be helpful but not doing the zillions of things they have in mind, while giving the unfriendly incumbent a pass.

morekozhambu 4y ago
Springtime 4y ago
I'm not sure who they is in this context but the person who runs the channel linked in the topic and who is normally in the videos has consistently praised Framework for their efforts, including the release of these public schematics, regardless of being partially complete, and has reminded viewers how it compares to other brands that don't release anything of the kind for helping repair shops. In a recent video they were considering buying a second Framework laptop of their own just to have it displayed in videos as essentially free advertising. If some of these characterizations are about them it seems misplaced tbh.
- mlyle 4y ago
  > I'm not sure who they is in this context Same "they" as the parent-- "for some subset of users you will never be good enough, and they’ll complain just as loudly about you as they do the default (far worse) option." Not implying that it's the channel's stance. On any criterion: ease of repair, privacy, security, good citizenship, etc: there's some subset of critics who treat the best behaved companies and individuals worse than the worst. These are the people who e.g. give Apple a much harder time on privacy than Meta.

arinlen 4y ago

> (...) no matter how much better you are than the default, for some subset of users you will never be good enough (...) What if it is really not good enough? Should everyone just accept someone's claims that they addressed a problem when they might be actually making it worse by pretending it's solved when it isn't? I recall the days of old when no laptop supported linux, and the impact there was when a model showed up with claims it indeed supported linux. I bought one based on those claims (don't recall the make-model, might have been an Acer) and I still recall the disappointment I felt when I discovered critical stuff like wifi did not worked at all. There were a few comments like "It boots, right?" followed by "for some subset of users you will never be good enough" when critical problems were pointed out, but the truth of the matter was that a purchase was made based on a feature that was advertised but was in fact not offered.