Hacker News Reader

Comment by andrewia | Hacker News Reader

There has always been a trade-off between modularity and size. Each card is effectively a USB-C/Thunderbolt dongle, so they need to be big enough to fit a reasonable amount of electronics (like 1TB of NAND, or an Ethernet IC) plus the shell and connectors. If your needs are basic (just USB, 3.5mm, 1x HDMI etc.) then you should get the Thinkpad. But if you want modularity for special cases (e.g. triple HDMI, double Ethernet, or triple MicroSD readers) or if you like to move your ports to alternating sides of your laptop, then the Framework's expansion system is for you. Framework is inherently a compromise between thickness and modularity (also why I assume it uses an internal battery) in a 14" portable laptop. Perhaps a new generation could shoehorn in a non-card USB-C port, although that would break their design rule that all ports support Thunderbolt.

View on HN

> Perhaps a new generation could shoehorn in a non-card USB-C port, although that would break their design rule that all ports support Thunderbolt.

And that is what frustrates me so much. Sure, have an expansion slot on each side, they seem cool and I get the benefits. But give me more ports in a motherboard I can replace. This didn't seem like a technical decision or one grounded in values of repairability and sustainability, it seems like they made a design decision that is objectively worse.

> But give me more ports in a motherboard I can replace.

They might simply be bandwidth-constrained. Driving 4 individual Thunderbolt 4 channels requires an insane amount of IO bandwidth, more than even the M1 or M2 can provide.

If they added another port, it probably wouldn't be any faster than USB 2.0.

I have it, and love it. Plus they double as regular dongles for my pos M1 macbook

At least one USB-C should be standard (not modular) though. That way you can always charge it easily without the modules installed.

The modules themselves connect to the laptop via USB-C ports, so if you don't have a USB-C module you can still charge it by removing another module.

Depends on your power adapter. My bog-standard one I use with my Framework is a Best Buy standard. It is just a little too thick to fit into the recessed USB-C when the adapter is removed.

I'm really surprised that there isn't (yet) a 2-4 port hub option. Or a larger expansion rail of some sort - it can have limits to it (no thunderbolt or whatever's high bandwidth), that can act as a dock for multiple modules.

Maybe they're hoping a 3rd party does it (it's effectively a regular hub in a specific form factor).

> triple HDMI, double Ethernet, or triple MicroSD readers

Is that really the niche that Framework is targeting? I thought it was meant to be a generally appealing laptop with expansion options like laptops used to have.

How much physical space does 1TB of NAND really take up anyway?

It seems that the NAND doesn't need much space, but the support components do. https://guides.frame.work/Guide/1TB+Expansion+Card+Throttlin...

Framework is just making a laptop that is both repairable and modular. These just happen to be use cases for it. I find business laptops like Thinkpads "repairable enough" and am okay with the upsides and downsides of a fixed selection of ports, so I don't own a Framework. But my friend owns one because they would rather have a limited number of very customizable ports - for example, when they need to charge the Framework while connecting to a TV, they can swap around the USB-C and HDMI ports to the side closer to each. And when they need to dock to a bunch of stuff at their desk, a USB-C dock is a more suitable solution. This obviously isn't for everyone, but it satisfies their niche.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com