The keyboard/chassis eventually wear out.
Ports/busses/memory get changed and updated requiring a full refresh anyway.
CPUs don't improve that dramatically, the years of doubling performance every 18 months are long gone. 3 years time is likely to result in what, a 30% performance enhancement? If that? That's nice, but not really worth an upgrade cycle. Especially if those enhancements come at a cost of a bigger die/higher price.
If Intel would keep manufacturing compatible CPUs, past the point where they are becoming commodity parts, and without changing the socket interface every 18 months, then I think people would become interested
Historically, AMD beats Intel into the dust on this issue
edit - even this article reminds us that this product appears to replace Intel's 'Compute Card', which itself apparently superseded Intel's 'Compute Stick'. Betting on this product for more than a year or two ahead looks about as hopeful as betting on Google's latest API
That pretty aptly describes how I feel about Framework laptops, as well. The difference is that these seem to be more cost effective, come with ports, and have better, longer warranties, offsetting how quickly costs get externalized to customers.
I'm afraid of this becoming a subscription service for hardware. Buy our chassis, now buy all the things that used to come with your laptop, and don't worry, when you feel your underpowered chipset lagging, you can pay the price of a new laptop to upgrade a single part.
But hey, that part is technically reusable so that's sustainable, right?
It's likely that Intel wants industry adoption of the format for laptops and certainly the gushing from HN over the Framework laptop that has a similar swappable mainboard shows that there may be a market for such parts swapping for laptops. But considering the way that Intel abruptly abandoned their Compute Cards that preceded the Compute Element and how the few early adopters were burnt by that, I wonder if we'll see much industry uptake.
I'd rather have a swappable compute module than some USBC adapters that are pretty much a gimmick IMO. They're both Intel so I won't be buying either, but I like to see that the push towards modular laptops seems to be going in a direction.
Also whos to say someone won't hack this to use non nuc modules? I'm sure the firmware is locked down but who knows. It would likely be more feasible to hack a new module into it over hoping framework makes new motherboards with the specs you want.
Adding on, the number of 'upgradable' platforms with no upgrades ever produced is quite large.
Intel should at least make prototype 'upgrades' from previous generarions to show it's feasible. Or at least from a current core series and a current atom series.
I'm with you on this one. If I could move the CPU and RAM from my late 2021 HP laptop to my 2013 MBP I would do so in a heartbeat.
Apart from that, the only things somewhat better on the HP are USB-C charging (allows me to use other people's chargers – I work in PC-land) and HDMI 2.0 port. I barely use the last one, and for all my needs the mac's DP connectors were enough (could run 4k@60Hz). Bonus points for those being thunderbolt, so they run at full speed with a screen attached.
The mac's screen, touchpad, keyboard, speakers, wifi (!), lack of case creaking while on a flat surface are all simply superior. And this is a 9 yo computer that I've lugged around daily for some 7-8 years and would only go to sleep while in my bag.
+ Environmental impact (less being thrown into landfills)
+ They might already like the chassis (I really miss the keyboard layout and touchpad from my old laptop)
Given laptops are supposed to be portable PCs (MacBooks aside) and PCs were always upgradable, it's a great pity we've stepped backwards into something a lot less customisable.
I have, and still regularly use, a ThinkPad from 2008 which remains perfectly fine for light use and which would be my favorite machine if I could upgrade the CPU. Why do you think laptops are consumables?
NUC's are a motherboard. They'll typically have a processor included (maybe always?) but also have onboard USB, HDMI and other components. Sometimes even a WiFi radio, though my NUC doesn't. You then supply the storage, RAM and any external accessories.
That means you can upgrade your CPU and still see upgrades in USB, RAM and so on and so forth, like you wanted, too.
I'm not exactly a member of the Intel fan club but I've got to admit that the NUC is a pretty awesome bit of kit. Crudely speaking, it's halfway between a Raspberry Pi and a desktop PC. So I think it's really well suited for the kind of purpose described in the article. I've got a NUC from around a decade ago to use as a HTPC and it's still going strong even now.
You've completely ignored what I've said and argued a completely different points.
> On a laptop from 2008, you won't have USB 3.0, 5ghz wifi, support for 16GB DIMM's (and maybe not even 8GB).
As I said, NUCs include all the stuff you've described. So upgrading the NUC in your laptop absolutely would upgrade USB et al. A NUC is a small form factor motherboard with an Intel CPU integrated. Just like upgrading your motherboard in a PC would upgrade USB et al, upgrading the NUC board would too. So your comment here doesn't apply to the product we're specifically talking about.
> But even more to the point, your ten year old NUC is good enough. If you were the sort of person who upgraded, you would have upgraded.
I said I use it as a HTPC. A HTPC is, by definition, not as a primary computing device. It's literally just a set top box.
If my last laptop was upgradable by swapping the board with a new one (in the same way as the laptop being advertised here is) then I absolutely would have done that instead of buying a new one. I loved that laptop -- still do. But it just aged too far for me to use it as my daily development machine.
> While a C64 isn't good enough for most people today, a ten year old laptop is right up until it breaks.
I don't even understand your point here. You're comparing apples to oranges and don't even make a point out of it.
For what it's worth, I do still have a bunch of 80s (and 70s too) 8-bit micros and still use them regularly. Sometimes for retro gaming, sometimes to teach my kids programming. Sometimes I just power them on for no particular reason aside nostalgia. It's sad how those machines are still working flawlessly yet modern systems 1/10th of the age are routinely breaking. Just goes to show how complex things have gotten and how disposable we consider our hardware these days. Just as your comments on this topic also do.
I understand the sentiment. I've felt dismay at seeing many generations of personal and work laptops turn into e-waste. It just isn't practical to keep them operating and relevant. Laptop LCDs used to be more trouble with fluorescent backlights, but since the switch to LED backlights, I've seen laptops (and smartphones) look nearly identical on their last day of service as their first.
For me, it is the battery or motherboard+thermal solution which seem consumable and prone to failure. If these were modular and could always be replaced with contemporary upgrades, I could easily see myself using the same screen and chassis for decades. The basic 14 inch ultrabook format is close to its asymptotic ideal, I suspect. This could even justify having a little more invested in the chassis to make it even more robust, such as some more exotic titanium alloy or whatever.
But, for me the supported service life would really need to be decades with compatible modular parts. I would not want to be stuck looking at obsolete replacement parts from somebody's dusty warehouse when I have the need or impulse to refresh the machine. I'd want the replacement module to have options with the now current CPUs, GPUs, RAM type, networking, storage, and other IO ports. I would not want to be operating a time capsule of obsolete components.
My existing laptop is only 6 months old, so no. But I would consider this device when I'm looking to purchase a new laptop (and would have considered this device had I known about it 6 months ago).
Except I do buy laptops. So I am a potential customer. I also buy NUCs. Which also makes me a potential customer.
> Nor part of a logically viable market segment.
Incorrect. See answer above.
> Even if catering to single purchase buyers made sense.
You're now making assumptions about my background. I've made corporate purchasing decisions before and there's every chance I might take up that role again in the near future. There have been a few businesses buy into NUCs on a broader scale and I know for a fact that one of those businesses did so after my recommendation. So Intel have already made a pretty penny from me and I'm sure I'm not an isolated case either.
> Which it doesn’t for Nuc’s because they are not consumer products.
It's NUC (all case because it is an acronym of "Next Unit of Computing" -- I know it's dumb name but I didn't come up with it) and yes they are consumer products. More so than Raspberry Pis.
Just because you weren't aware of it doesn't mean it's not a consumer product. As it happens the NUC I own was bought from a consumer store.
> Not sure any of that insight will stick. But always hopeful.
There is absolutely no need for you to be rude all the time. Particularly when you're the one pulling strawman / misunderstanding peoples comments (hard to tell if you're intentionally missing the point or just not bothering to read other peoples comments properly).
Also given you've not heard of the NUC before now and didn't even know what it was before stubbornly taking your stance, you're not really in a strong position to be lecturing other people about what the NUC is or is not.
> On a laptop from 2008, you won't have USB 3.0, 5ghz wifi, support for 16GB DIMM's (and maybe not even 8GB).
It's modular. No USB 3.0, true, but WiFi should be doable by replacing that card, and at least mine has 8GB of RAM (which, granted, is more than the manufacturer specifically supports and is actually the maximum that machine can handle).
"fine with using it as-is" and "would buy some upgrade parts if they were available" are not necessarily exclusive.
I've known plenty of people for whom upgradeable laptops make no sense- by the time newer parts come out, their poor devices have been accidentally thrown down the stairs multiple times and are only being held together by hopes and dreams.
For others who are a little gentler on their devices, if upgrade parts were not absurdly expensive, and if other aspects of the "core" interaction experience were still modern-ish- basically if we haven't moved to 8K OLED screens etc- then why not just update what you've got?
> and which would be my favorite machine if I could upgrade the CPU.
Which means "if I could spend some money to upgrade the CPU, it would go from okay for light use to good for all uses, and that would be a good deal since I love everything about the machine other than the slow processor".
Regarding your other points - yes, upgrading the CPU in isolation might be impractical. On the other hand, I like the chassis enough that I've already thought about replacing the whole mainboard with a Pi based version, so swapping in a NUC is still pretty reasonable sounding.
- yet they also get a lower return on investment since consumers now have a cheaper upgrade path
It's the usual problem with consumerism: companies couldn't give a crap about the environment nor longer term reusability because they're ultimately far less profitable than forcing people into perpetually buying new every few years.
NUCs have been around for a decade already. The supply chains are already well established and the hardware already very accessible to consumers. Just because this is your first discovering of the hardware it doesn't mean that a great many people haven't already been using NUCs in a variety of settings.
Also a laptop is more than just the motherboard and processor. You have the casing, keyboard, touchpad, cooling systems, battery, PSU, monitor, etc.
I'm really not convinced you have looked into NUCs before because (at least in England) I've found the exact opposite is true: they've been really affordable when compared to hardware of a similar price point. Sure you can get a really cheap laptop but you end up with a low quality storage medium, lower quality memory, or other shortcuts taken and you can guarantee the device will break after two years. Plus they'll run louder and/or draw more power too. This is particularly true with budget desktops too.
The point of the NUC isn't that it's an entry level board (we already have Raspberry Pi and various copycat boards for that). The NUC is intended to be an upgrade from that but still in the compact form factor. Which is why many compared the first NUCs to Mac Minis. And to that end I know of some businesses that replaced their desktops with NUCs because of their cheap cost (relative to other business machines), low noise, low power usage, and compact form factor.
Additionally NUCs have been used as the basis for quite a number of devices in the broadcasting industry too. My last company had a few NUC-powered devices handed to them from various broadcasting partners.
I've also bought a NUC for myself for personal use. I bought it from a consumer web site and decided upon it after a recommendation from other consumers. So it's appeal isn't just as a low cost business machine.
Other comments in here have been equally glowing about the NUC as well. So I find it really hard to believe you had given any serious time investigating them before now. I mean you haven't even capitalised the product name correctly and didn't realise USB et al was onboard until halfway through our discussion.
If this product isn't for you then that's fine. I'm not here to convince you to buy one. And equally just because you don't see a value it doesn't mean others can't either.
I've hung onto my old MBP 2015 for way too long simply for the keyboard. If I could upgrade just the CPU I would, but it has rarely been the limiting factor. I've already changed the original SSD to a faster 1TB.
Yet another anecdote but my Lenovo Thinkpad X1 from 2017 is still a very high quality laptop. Of course it's an ultrabook so I don't imagine replacing anything on it.
It "shouldn't", but practicality considerations prevent that from happening. Even on desktops where theoretically every component is swappable, if you want to to upgrade your CPU you often have to replace the motherboard (because chipset compatability with the CPU) and maybe the RAM (because the CPU uses a newer DRAM generation). At this point the only thing you're retaining is the chassis, keyboard, and display which makes up a small overall cost of the laptop.
> At this point the only thing you're retaining is the chassis, keyboard, and display which makes up a small overall cost of the laptop.
I don't really agree with this take.
I've looked a bit around for laptops at the end of 2021, and it was my impression that the difference between cheaper and pricier laptops from a given manufacturer is exactly those bits that don't change that much: nicer screens, cases, speakers, etc. They all come with the same CPUs and take the same RAM and NVMe drives.
> If you want to to upgrade your CPU you often have to replace the motherboard.
That's true for Intel and their "Tick-Tock" cycle which breaks compatibility every other year. So far AMD's commitment to AM4 has shown that it's possible to upgrade a 5 years old motherboard to the latest CPU. Let's hope their next AM5 socket gets the same longevity.
I am glad that some of you feel this way, because it creates a never-ending supply of cheap but still very nice barely-used laptops for me to buy instead of new ones.
The keyboard/chassis eventually wear out. Ports/busses/memory get changed and updated requiring a full refresh anyway. CPUs don't improve that dramatically, the years of doubling performance every 18 months are long gone. 3 years time is likely to result in what, a 30% performance enhancement? If that? That's nice, but not really worth an upgrade cycle. Especially if those enhancements come at a cost of a bigger die/higher price.