5 ms·

They seem to be doing everything they can to make it not proprietary. I'm not sure if there's more that they can do.

zamnos 3y ago
a couple possibilities off the top of my head, starting with actually working with other vendors, so it's not only them making them. Work on the whole supply chain - including recycling - for these things. do a "buy one give one" type deal to seed the hardware more widely. write a bunch of software for the device so there's even more of a draw to get one of these. develop an ARM board. All of these projects are non-trivial but until they have the sales to support the kind of staying that would require, they'll need more capital first. Know any VCs? just dumping the specs on the website isn't enough. they need to to actually talk to other vendors and get them involved with the project, and figure out the right financial incentives for them, which won't be easy.
- dcow 3y ago
  Lol wut? You want VCs to fund the creation/incubation of a laptop mainboard spec using equity from Framework just to spoon-feed other vendors into competition? I mean it kinda seems like the onus is on new vendors to work off the published specs and and with Framework as interest grows to codify a standard so they can be relevant. I’m sure Framework would love that. It’s really dumb to see people advocating for Framework to waste resources solving a problem that doesn't exist.
  - candiddevmike 3y ago
    For me, all of their openness kind of falls flat when you realize it's just another locked-in laptop ecosystem... It's great that they publish their specs, but that doesn't mean anything to me if they're the only ones making them.
    - dcow 3y ago
      But they’re not locking you in, while other vendors clearly and deliberately are. Definitely the lesser evil. So even a utilitarian like you would choose Framework, provided all else is equal. They even promote 3rd party enclosures for the mainboard in this post so you can’t even say they’re not fostering the ecosystem when they can. It’s not incumbent upon Framework to actually provide competition. That’s a competitor's job. The nuance is that being open is the ”right thing to do”. It’s not fair to criticize Framework for doing the right thing because no competitors have stepped up yet. Or because nobody else has come around yet. It’s fine to comment on the situation and say “effectively I can still only buy a Framework mainboard”. Thats true, of course. But that's in no way Framework’s fault.
      - candiddevmike 3y ago
        I don't think you're getting my point. I can't do anything with the specs Framework publishes, I can't fab my own parts. So for me, either as an individual or a person buying equipment for my business, when comparing Framework with Dell or Lenovo, it's the same outcome: they're the sole supplier of parts for their devices. Thus, I don't really get a benefit with using Framework vs one of the other providers, especially when I could buy a new laptop (on sale or whatever) for the cost of a mainboard upgrade. I won't buy Framework devices.
        dcow 3y ago
        It you who's not getting my point. I explicitly said I understand that effectively there's no difference for you at the moment with framework vs other vendors. My point was that having an open system still puts you in a better situation than a closed system (and that it's not fair to criticize Framework for 3rd party parts vendors not existing since that's how this thread started), for numerous reasons but especially because you're not wholly dependent on the future benevolence of your chosen vendor to prioritize, manufacture, and provide at reasonable prices replacement parts and upgrades. Since they have a monopoly on that part, they can charge whatever they want so there's literally no incentive whatsoever pulling down the price. I said this holds if all else is equal. You're now bringing in cost. This is a factor too, for sure, and responds to my all else is equal caveat. And if your cost analysis determines that Framework is not worth the price, then there isn't much I can do about that in a discussion here since I can't speak to their quality/reliability/experience (and why they might be worth the cost or how you might otherwise benefit for the additional price when compared to e.g. Dell) since I'm not an owner.
  - zamnos 3y ago
    Don't blame me you didn't understand the assignment. The question was, what more could framework do to make their mainboard more of a standard, and was asked in a way that implied that the comment's autjor could not imagine a way they could do more than they have already. As to the VCs funding the endeavor, maybe you've heard of the open source movement? While funding is still sometimes slim, there are still businesses being funded "for the greater good", rather than primarily trying to enrich the executives. I'm also of the mind that funders of Framework knew what they were getting into. Their openness wasn't exactly a secret, nor would it have been from the board or any investors. If Framework was able to move the needle on modularity and reusability (and thus poison less of the Earth *) of what was previously mostly ewaste, then even if they went bankrupt, it still would be progress for humanity and the founders can hold onto that for the rest of their lives. * The 2nd R of environmentalism is reuse.
    - dcow 3y ago
      You're crazy. If we're hallucinating and sharing notes, then we could also have Framework lobby to pass a law that requires all laptop makers to use their spec. We could coerce the president of every country to pass an executive order demanding as much. We could do it by force, even. We could starve children and superglue their fingers to soldering irons and tell them they only way they eat is if they produce competing mainboards. ....just because you can imagine doing something doesn't make it in the least bit realistic. Don't be a hyperbolic asshat. Framework is open-spec because it's good for business and customers. I would hope their investors knew exactly what they were getting into--and that's not a charity. It's a good business built on principles of reducing e-waste and reusing perfectly good parts year over year instead of vendor lock-in and planned obsolescence. It's a better product and better UX. And like Amazon showed the world, that matters. Open source has nothing to do with nor does it imply charity. Please stop misleading people by equivocating.
uoaei 3y ago
We could call it a "new standard" that's so new the format hasn't been recognized by the wider industry. Although there was that Cooler Master case for mainboard only that can turn it into a headless server, so it's beginning to trickle into mainstream awareness.

a couple possibilities off the top of my head, starting with actually working with other vendors, so it's not only them making them. Work on the whole supply chain - including recycling - for these things. do a "buy one give one" type deal to seed the hardware more widely. write a bunch of software for the device so there's even more of a draw to get one of these. develop an ARM board. All of these projects are non-trivial but until they have the sales to support the kind of staying that would require, they'll need more capital first. Know any VCs? just dumping the specs on the website isn't enough. they need to to actually talk to other vendors and get them involved with the project, and figure out the right financial incentives for them, which won't be easy.

dcow 3y ago
Lol wut? You want VCs to fund the creation/incubation of a laptop mainboard spec using equity from Framework just to spoon-feed other vendors into competition? I mean it kinda seems like the onus is on new vendors to work off the published specs and and with Framework as interest grows to codify a standard so they can be relevant. I’m sure Framework would love that. It’s really dumb to see people advocating for Framework to waste resources solving a problem that doesn't exist.
- candiddevmike 3y ago
  For me, all of their openness kind of falls flat when you realize it's just another locked-in laptop ecosystem... It's great that they publish their specs, but that doesn't mean anything to me if they're the only ones making them.
  - dcow 3y ago
    But they’re not locking you in, while other vendors clearly and deliberately are. Definitely the lesser evil. So even a utilitarian like you would choose Framework, provided all else is equal. They even promote 3rd party enclosures for the mainboard in this post so you can’t even say they’re not fostering the ecosystem when they can. It’s not incumbent upon Framework to actually provide competition. That’s a competitor's job. The nuance is that being open is the ”right thing to do”. It’s not fair to criticize Framework for doing the right thing because no competitors have stepped up yet. Or because nobody else has come around yet. It’s fine to comment on the situation and say “effectively I can still only buy a Framework mainboard”. Thats true, of course. But that's in no way Framework’s fault.
    - candiddevmike 3y ago
      I don't think you're getting my point. I can't do anything with the specs Framework publishes, I can't fab my own parts. So for me, either as an individual or a person buying equipment for my business, when comparing Framework with Dell or Lenovo, it's the same outcome: they're the sole supplier of parts for their devices. Thus, I don't really get a benefit with using Framework vs one of the other providers, especially when I could buy a new laptop (on sale or whatever) for the cost of a mainboard upgrade. I won't buy Framework devices.
      - dcow 3y ago
        It you who's not getting my point. I explicitly said I understand that effectively there's no difference for you at the moment with framework vs other vendors. My point was that having an open system still puts you in a better situation than a closed system (and that it's not fair to criticize Framework for 3rd party parts vendors not existing since that's how this thread started), for numerous reasons but especially because you're not wholly dependent on the future benevolence of your chosen vendor to prioritize, manufacture, and provide at reasonable prices replacement parts and upgrades. Since they have a monopoly on that part, they can charge whatever they want so there's literally no incentive whatsoever pulling down the price. I said this holds if all else is equal. You're now bringing in cost. This is a factor too, for sure, and responds to my all else is equal caveat. And if your cost analysis determines that Framework is not worth the price, then there isn't much I can do about that in a discussion here since I can't speak to their quality/reliability/experience (and why they might be worth the cost or how you might otherwise benefit for the additional price when compared to e.g. Dell) since I'm not an owner.
- zamnos 3y ago
  Don't blame me you didn't understand the assignment. The question was, what more could framework do to make their mainboard more of a standard, and was asked in a way that implied that the comment's autjor could not imagine a way they could do more than they have already. As to the VCs funding the endeavor, maybe you've heard of the open source movement? While funding is still sometimes slim, there are still businesses being funded "for the greater good", rather than primarily trying to enrich the executives. I'm also of the mind that funders of Framework knew what they were getting into. Their openness wasn't exactly a secret, nor would it have been from the board or any investors. If Framework was able to move the needle on modularity and reusability (and thus poison less of the Earth *) of what was previously mostly ewaste, then even if they went bankrupt, it still would be progress for humanity and the founders can hold onto that for the rest of their lives. * The 2nd R of environmentalism is reuse.
  - dcow 3y ago
    You're crazy. If we're hallucinating and sharing notes, then we could also have Framework lobby to pass a law that requires all laptop makers to use their spec. We could coerce the president of every country to pass an executive order demanding as much. We could do it by force, even. We could starve children and superglue their fingers to soldering irons and tell them they only way they eat is if they produce competing mainboards. ....just because you can imagine doing something doesn't make it in the least bit realistic. Don't be a hyperbolic asshat. Framework is open-spec because it's good for business and customers. I would hope their investors knew exactly what they were getting into--and that's not a charity. It's a good business built on principles of reducing e-waste and reusing perfectly good parts year over year instead of vendor lock-in and planned obsolescence. It's a better product and better UX. And like Amazon showed the world, that matters. Open source has nothing to do with nor does it imply charity. Please stop misleading people by equivocating.

uoaei 3y ago

We could call it a "new standard" that's so new the format hasn't been recognized by the wider industry. Although there was that Cooler Master case for mainboard only that can turn it into a headless server, so it's beginning to trickle into mainstream awareness.