I used a Framework 13" as my daily driver for 3 years. I still have it, and now I also have a Framework 16", which has been my daily driver for the last six months.
The user serviceability and upgrade stories are real. The hardware isn't as svelte as Apple's, but mine has traveled all over the world and has yet to have any major issues. The one hardware failure I had was that the USB-C half of the charging cable on my 13" eventually broke after a few years of abuse, but that used to happen to me with Apple charging cables, too.
Framework has an active initiative to do outreach to different Linux distro communities and give them free hardware to help shore up compatibility. And, on that note, I haven't run into any Linux hardware compatibility issues (not with Pop!_OS, or more recently NixOS).
Speaking for myself, they have a loyal customer for as long as they continue to make this kind of hardware.
I love mine too (have owned every 13" they have made either personally or at work, plus the new 16"). Having the actual usb recessed and having a sacrificial usb-c as the one you use has saved taken me from breaking usb-c ports at roughly one a year to zero. The upgradeability and serviceability is real as well.
That beings said, my complaints about them are:
They are a few hundred dollars more expensive than comparable hardware most of the time.
They were pretty slow releasing bios updates, although they seem to be getting faster at that.
There is no kensington lock.
After seeing the Linus tour of the factory where they fully assemble the DIY edition for testing and then take it back apart for shipping. I'm kind of annoyed. Find a different way to discount home users, you're spending more labor to get a lower price for your product.
Tbh it probably is cheaper for them to test that it powers up ... There would be nothing worse than building a laptop to find it was an RMA deal.... I would expect that the social media backlash could kill the product...
Yah, it does, but just leave it assembled to the point you had to assemble it and ship it rather than making me put the ram/gpu/nvme/whatever back in putting wear on the insertion slots and taking my time. I get that they are trying to put a barrier big enough that people are willing to pay the few hundred dollar convenience tax, so maybe just leave the NVME out and avoid the wear and tear on the GPU and the ram. It's basically the same barrier because you are removing the keyboard and undoing a bunch of scary screws in both cases but you get to spend less on labor at the factory and I have to install less crap myself (I was always buying the self assembled one, I like that stuff).
I fully expect that the intention is to force you into opening up the laptop to install the RAM. RAM is so easy to install that there's basically no risk of the customer messing up, and it exposes you to how easy it is to open up your laptop and how high quality the build is. Worked very well for me, I knew I would not accept buying anything of a lower standard before I even powered it on for the first time.
If it's actually an advertising expense then it's likely priced wrong. They should give the real price in the business section (where people don't want to have to install because they are buying multiples of them and where that price is obscured from the consumer) and have an even higher price for the fully assembled one (and a bit lower price for the unassembled one). Now if 80 % plus of their consumer business is the diy one right now then I'm wrong, but I doubt I am.
How rigid would you say the frame is for Frameworks? Do you feel any flex at all when typing? Screen shake?
Over time, some of the laptops I've tried (cheap and expensive, many different brands) just feel like they start to fall apart. Either the screen hinges are junk and fail, leading to screen shake/nod whenever I type...or the frame is too weak, and the laptop itself starts to bend inward over time because I type hard.
If I could get something with an incredibly rugged frame, and excellent hinges, it'd be wonderful. I've seriously considered Toughbook's in the past, but the keyboard feeling for them is atrocious and the specs are always too weak.
It is overly generous to describe this as "privacy first." This looks like it's one ToS change away from being a privacy violating service.
In Apple's case, they are putting some amount of work into making their privacy claims verifiable. Good will is no longer good enough. Verifiability should be the bar for trust in 3P privacy claims.
This might be true for any run-of-the-mill service, but I do give Mozilla upfront credit as an entity and Firefox's privacy-leading track record. I haven't read the fine print, but I would be very surprised if there wasn't a robust layer of privacy/anonymisation involved. (Side note: I think the future is in-browser LLM (a la Gemini Nano), so I suspect they will eventually move there.)
Also consider that Apple has the big pockets to build their own server hardware, to claim multiple layers of privacy - but also remember that when they first introduced "differential privacy" and claimed it would be totally anonymous, privacy researchers soon found out that Apple set the epsilon so low that even after a few requests to their service, the user could be de-anonymized.
Mozilla's privacy-leading track record includes making Google the default search engine, running opt-in-by-default privacy-violating experiments, such as the Mr Robot fiasco[1], and opt-in-by-default collaboration with advertisers[2].
I still use Firefox, but I try to stay aware of changes, precisely because of Mozilla's privacy-leading gaffe record.
Worth noting that the comment closing the issue mentions:
> You can disable Google Analytics in about:addons by setting your Do Not Track status to on.
> Again: this only affects users who visit the page with Tracking Protection on (which automatically enables DNT) or who manually set their DNT status to on.
but Firefox removed the DNT control last month (https://bugzilla.mozilla.org/show_bug.cgi?id=1928087), though it kept the Tracking Protection control and privacy.donottrackheader.enabled is still available in about:config.
Such a lazy take. Yes, they show ads based on what you search for in the App Store. They will also show apps based on location if the customer opts in to that feature. No other data is used. No browsing history, no purchase history, nothing like what other companies are collecting.
Glancing at your comment history I can't help but notice that most of your comments are related to defending Apple, even at points where the consensus on HN is that Apple is obviously in the wrong. I applaud you, sir.
Eventually the addressable market for iPhones will saturate, but the growth imperative will remain.
If I were king of Apple and I truly valued user privacy, I would be careful not to tie any revenue streams to products that entail the progressive violation of user privacy.
This elides an important detail: outside of iOS a browser implementer can choose the code to compile and link against. Even if they build on Chrome, they can patch it to their heart's content or even fork and carry on. On iOS the browser runtime is set by fiat.
Also worth observing that most web browsers in the history of the web (including Chrome and Safari) started out as a fork of some other browser.
I might think to suggest that unchecked capitalist exploitation of our natural world has an awful lot to do with the inequities you brought into the discussion. And, if you grant me that this is possibly true (even if unconvincing or unprovable), surely you would agree that someone who believes such a thing would be prosocial and certainly not racist to scoff at the notion that somehow ever-more-unchecked-exploitation is the path to absolution.
I don’t know how absolution figures into this or how providing an API for simulations of earths weather systems is some escalation of unchecked exploitation. In fact there was a HN headline article recently that extreme weather hurts the poorest nations because they lack the infrastructure to predict the weather well. Wouldn’t having such an API be of assistance? Is it possible that technology that’s three orders of magnitude more efficient (as they claim) be a boon to the poorest countries that are roughly three orders of magnitude less capable of affording advanced infrastructure like this? Or is grinding political ideology axes more important than actually making important things possible for the poorest countries?
2: Are the people using it for things that it suits, vs things that it doesn't?
For example, if it turns out to be decently accurate at predicting weather (say) "3 days from now" while being seriously wrong at timescales of 6 months, then only using for weather forecasts for the next few days seems good.
But some people tend to believe anything an "AI" computer says regardless, so we'd need to make sure those kinds of people aren't getting it adopted where its harmful.
I wish I could agree, but the hard truth is that decisions that imply heavy amounts of energy consumption have to be able to sustain active critique.
Simply waving the upsides around and shaming anyone who questions the cost is an age-old posture that has helped bring our society to the brink of disaster.
Consuming energy in itself isn’t problematic, what’s problematic is certain types of energy production are destructive. The question isn’t whether the use of energy itself is moral, it’s are they making moral choices with how they source their energy. That’s why clean and renewable energies are so important - there’s no reason to reduce energy consumption, there’s just reason to stop being destructive when producing energy.
I partially agree. It's actually both questions, because...
- We don't have a 100% renewable energy regime (and we are very far from it)
- Even if we did it would be possible (and likely) for bad actors to arbitrage cheap energy for yet-more-harmful use cases
- As we grow the portion of grid demand that is served by green, renewable energy, the price of coal and natural gas is being driven down
- Until we have 100% deployment, one company's "green" energy consumption will simply drive the less-well-capitalized to cheaper, not-green energy sources
Cheaper, more pervasive energy will be used efficiently in the ways that are enabled by our legal framework. If we aren't critical of those usages, there is nothing to say that abuses won't become exponentially more conspicuous even as we adopt more and more "clean" energy. And in fact, that's what we see happening in the world today. Look no further than:
- Bitcoin mines exploiting cheap spot power and demand response policies, and burning natural gas directly from the well because the speculative price of crypto is more appealing than selling the same gas on the market
- Generative AI in general, but especially when you see hundreds of thousands of GPUs deployed without so much as a business case (Stability AI, Inflection, probably many others surfacing in the weeks to come)
Personally I think framing this as some kind of double-standard regarding copyright or even a copyright-specific issue misses the forest for the trees.
The problem I see is that the generative AI economy hinges on an injustice: the presumption that all art on the internet - no matter the medium, or means or relative notoriety of the artist - shall be candidate training data, and no burden of attribution whatsoever shall be laid upon those who leverage it.
Most graphic artists that I know bemoan copyright. But, it's a tool that the law has given them.
Also: most graphic artists that I know exist under low economic circumstances - some near poverty - relative to most of the people I know who are building the next great wave of technological innovations with generative AI.
I don't see a struggle over copyright. Artists, who exist towards the bottom of the economic ladder as it is, are doing what they can to survive.
>no matter the medium, or means or relative notoriety of the artist - shall be candidate training data
Why is this a special case? When people were viewing it, reposting it, using it to learn... those were all accepted uses. Passing it off as your own wasn't allowed, but outright plagiarism has pretty consistently been unaccepted.
The problem seems to stim from using it in a way that directly competes with the artist, and given your other point about their financial position, is a direct financial threat to them. The morality of the situation seems to be that it is wrong because of the financial harm, but recognizing that such an argument is rarely accepted, it must instead be justified by some other argument, any other argument, that condemns the outcome.
I don't think this is anything particularly unique. How often do we find things wrong because of a logical argument as to why it is wrong, and how often do we find a logical argument to justify our felling that something is wrong?
There is also a element of helplessness. No matter what the government does, pandora's box has been opened and it can't be closed. While it might slow down the development of better AI, it isn't going to stop it and banning existing software isn't going to be possible. The damage has been done, and even if the artists have an overwhelming victory, they are only going to recover a fraction of lost ground only to eventually lose it again.
The tricky part is that the ongoing training of ever-more-interesting generative AI *depends* on the ongoing labor of artists.
Proponents of the current economic model like to frame the artist rejection of AI as an obvious case of Luddism. Of course the artists reject this, it threatens their economic station! And: it's not even wrong.
But, it is a high modernist foible: at some point the raw resource is fully exploited and the wave of companies that rode high on its vast-but-unrenewable quantity will reckon with reality. Their businesses are unsustainable (who could have foreseen it!).
In the mean time, artists won't disappear. Most likely what will happen is that they will continue to subsist - they are essential in this economic loop, whether fairly compensated for their labor or not - but with an even lower economic posture than before.
I don't think there is a moral crisis here, but an economic one. Incidentally, an injustice is perpetrated upon an entire class of laborers. I'll leave it to others to decide the morality of that, considering all the trade-offs.
>The tricky part is that the ongoing training of ever-more-interesting generative AI depends on the ongoing labor of artists.
I think there is an ongoing issue. Much like how the privatization of the public domain has led to an ongoing issue of a large percent of our culture being privately owned. I'm not sure the fix to this.
I am by no means happy with the current situation, but I do find the moral reasoning behind the outrage at AI questionable at best as it doesn't seem to be consistent and instead based on what is economically beneficial to those showing outrage. By that same standard, AI is great because it lets me create things at a much cheaper cost.
Artist creating art of popular characters and AI using publicly posted art both seem pretty acceptable to me. Then again I'm the weirdo who goes to conventions to buy originals, the ones actually painted on canvas and not just easily reproducible prints, even though that does mean paying far more than the prints cost.
We are booking our tickets to Comic-Con. We tap through the form, maneuvering past the cumbersome AI-generated takeover promoting a new prestige TV show. The AIs are getting pretty good, and seem to have moved beyond the glassy-eyed doll faces characteristic of the Stable Diffusion era. Nevertheless, the ads are obnoxious and we can't wait to submit the form and get off of this website.
A memory rises unbidden: we once made comics and posted them to the web, free for all to read. We would even browse the web just to find and read them. Wild.
We find ourselves circuiting the convention hall. It is a brightly lit maze, festooned with endless AI-generated promotions for Marvel supers and yesteryear reboots. The cast of Friends is back, youthful as ever, and apparently we're getting at least three more seasons. We round a corner and..
Here. Yes, here. We remember it now. This whole row was once filled with tables showcasing prints and original works of art. Behind the tables: a spouse, a friend, or the artist in the flesh. Artists, who were remarkable in their day for their contributions to the great pop culture that drew us to the convention. Artists who, despite their labor and their infamy among certain fandoms, never appeared in a legible place on the credit roll. Artists who worked a day job for years, stocking shelves, packing boxes, approving Disney licensee merchandise, so that in the evening they might bend their weary backs, put pen to tablet and spill their imaginations across the screen. Artists who did all that so that we could come to Comic-Con today and appropriate for ourselves an original work of their art.
Where once there were artists, now there is Hello Kitty. Sanrio has taken over the whole row. You can walk up to Hello Kitty and ask it for any combination of officially licensed characters, with optional accessories if you have a few more dollars to spend. A 3D printer somewhere behind the booth's facade fabricates the bespoke toy on-demand in food-safe ABS. An original work of art.
>ongoing training of even-more-interesting generative AI depends on the ongoing labor of artists.
What does that mean? That you need artist to produce "even-more-interesting" art to train new iterations of generative AI? Could you point out some of these superfresh new art artist are doing that are completely different than things already done to exhaustion in the 1970s (other than anime)?
I don't think you need artists for that anymore. Certainly you don't need them for commercial purposes. If they are going to survive as an artist professionally, it will be because of the people that refuse to use AI art for whatever reason, but I don't see how that won't be short lived in the market.
Artists will survive, not professionally, but because they are doing it for the arts sake, even if that doesn't offer them any financial reward.
My impartial assessment of reality is disgusting? lol that's like if someone says the sky is blue and a colorblind person tells that's a disgusting view.
Yeah one thing that's often missed in these discussions is that the AI companies still need the artists! When you overexploit the commons, there will be consequences. We'll see if the synthetic data is good enough or not for future models I guess.
I would guess that this speaks to an unattended (developer) user story related to other workflows, or perhaps the container-adjacent ecosystem overall. Testing with any workflow is always tricky to get just right, and tools that make it easy (like, "install a package and go" easy) are underrated.
I saw a bunch of my techie friends all run out to buy one of these on launch day (thanks to their easy availability at Apple stores).
As far as I can tell from the reviews: this device is a preview of the future. But, it still needs iterative improvements before it will live up to its promise as a practical workstation or accessible gaming device.
It is plain to see that my friends who bought one are enjoying the camaraderie of all having done so. $4,000 is perhaps a reasonable price to feel connected to others in a meaningful way.
I am pretty sure people have managed to feel connected to others in a meaningful way before this device, and it didn't cost $4000. Not sure if you were being sarcastic...
How did anyone ever make friends 100 years ago without one of these!
