In his presentation, Nirav compared it twice to a MacBook. Even saying they want to build the MacBook of the Linux world iirc. While I also agree with you, it’s still a valid comparison.
It's not just a valid comparison; for some of us, it's the only comparison that matters. Upgradability and repairability are really nice features, but the machine still needs to otherwise be an upgrade over the one it's replacing.
If the Framework Pro holds up in reviews and works as well with Linux as claimed, it'll probably replace my M2 Air as a daily driver. If they add Dvorak as an option so I don't have to rearrange the keys myself, that will make the choice a slam dunk.
IMHO you should just stay with a Mac. The Framework Pro is the antithesis of a Mac, you can literally take your old framework's mainboard and network card and put them into the new chassis. Everything is replaceable. As long as they continue with that trend, it'll always be thicker and heavier than a Mac, and will always make compromises.
The video says that directly. They want to compete with MacBook, but people coming to Framework from Mac are attracted to the idea of owning their own computer and being able to customise it.
I'm not sure I understand your pitch. Most of those are features, not bugs. Why would I give up all of that plus first-class Linux support just to save checks notes 0.35mm in thickness?
"Upgradability and repairability are really nice features, but the machine still needs to otherwise be an upgrade over the one it's replacing."
You seemed like upgradability and repairability are secondary things to you, whereas the framework makes them its primary asset. It's unlikely the Framework Pro will ever be an "upgrade" over the MacBook in other areas. Comparing it to the MacBook completely skims over its most important differentiator.
Well that's also true, but "really nice features" still means the opposite of "terrible anti-features". All else being equal, I don't not want those things.
The more important part is first-class Linux support. From my perspective, macOS is basically discount Linux; it's tolerable, but only if the gulf between a MacBook and the next best hardware is wide enough to justify it.
Assuming the basics hold up well, upgradability and repairability likely push Framework Pro over the edge for me from merely "close enough" to "materially superior" on balance. I'd still be interested if it didn't have those features, but I'd also look more closely at alternatives and be less willing to pay a premium over the cost of an equivalently-specced MBP.
Yeah, it is a valid comparison, and assuming the quality is close to par with a macbook, I think it would be worth the extra cost.
I'm someone who doesn't want to go through a new laptop every other year. I've got an M1 mac right now. I've owned it for 5 years and could easily see myself getting another 5 years of use out of it. Only problem is, the hard drive is small, I can't upgrade it. It only has 16 GB RAM, which is fine for now, but I can't upgrade it. One of the 2 USB C ports gave out on me. I can't repair it.
If I had a laptop that I could repair and upgrade that also ran Linux? I would absolutely pay $2k for it - as long as the quality is good - because I think I would save money in the long term by making a laptop like that last a long time.
I use thinkpad (T14s now, X1 Carbon and X220 in the past). The hard drive is just m.sata and very easy to upgrade. You really can't upgrade the disk on a Mac?
