> but I can’t help but be frustrated by the constant lack of understanding of the core value proposition of framework both in this post and in many comments here on hn.

On the contrary, I think a lot of people completely understand the value proposition. It’s just that once you evaluate it against all of the tradeoffs and other priorities, it reveals that upgradeability is not as valuable as the other priorities. Most consumers aren’t single-issue voters who purchases hardware based on a single axis of features.

With Framework laptops specifically I’ve started to feel like “but it’s upgradable!” is becoming a tired rebuttal to any discussion of the tradeoffs you take one when you buy one of these machines.

In theory I enjoy an upgradeable machine, too. But in practice I’m not willing to give up much now in exchange for the possibility of maybe upgrading part of it later.

This is a classic example of revealed preference in product design. When you ask people in a vacuum if they want features like upgradeability, swappable batteries, or tiny phones that fit in your pocket the answer is always “Yes, obviously!” Then when the product comes to market and people have to vote with their wallets they survey the options and pick the laptop that’s light and highly integrated, the phone with a built-in battery that’s compact and sturdy, and the phone with a screen big enough to not feel cramped. This leaves a vocal minority trying to tell everyone else that they’re making the wrong choice or they have their priorities wrong, but the simpler answer is that these products are best reserved for the minority of people who prize singular design goals like upgradeability options to such an extreme that they’re willing to compromise or ignore everything else.