639
Framework’s first desktop is a strange—but unique—mini ITX gaming PC (arstechnica.com)
submitted 2 years ago by to c/technology@lemmy.world
282 comments fedilink hide all child comments
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] 0 points 2 years ago (12 children)

but you can just replace the board

The board is like, the whole computer tho. The mobo, CPU, GPU and RAM are all the same component. It's everything Framework is supposed to oppose. That took them what, 4 years? to throw away their values?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 12 child comments
    •
  • [–] 4 points 2 years ago (10 children)

    They also announced three other products (one new, two refreshes) which are still being actively developed and are fully-modular devices at low cost. If they're "throwing away their values," they're not doing it very well.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
    •
  • [–] -3 points 2 years ago* (9 children)

    It's never a single step process. These things happen slowly, bit by bit. It's the beginning of the end.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
    •
  • [–] 5 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (8 children)

    If this is it happening bit by bit, then why is most of the news about them doubling down on their principles? Why did they make clear what they were doing and why, and talk about their work to make it modular, instead of trying to hide it or sweep it under the rug?

    This sort of doomerism and slippery slope purity test nonsense is exactly why niche companies that do what people value eventually go under, leaving us with just the awful ones. This isn't a betrayal of their values. This isn't the beginning of the end. It's just a choice they made, and all of the other choices they made confirm that they're still doing stuff the way they were.

    Edit: I'm not saying you have to buy it, or that you shouldn't make clear to the company you don't think this comports with what you want them to value. But writing them off forever based on this one product seems so self-defeating.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago (7 children)

    If this is it happening bit by bit, then why is most of the news about them doubling down on their principles?

    Its called marketing.

    Why did they make clear what they were doing and why

    ...I don't understand the question. Why wouldn't they? Why does being clear about why they've abandoned their mission excuse anything?

    exactly why niche companies that do what people value

    That's the opposite of what's happening though.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
    •
  • [–] -1 points 2 years ago (6 children)

    Its called marketing.

    They're actually building those devices. It's not marketing if you can buy them.

    Why wouldn't they?

    Because most companies do. They gloss over the shifts so that they can focus on other stuff.

    Why does being clear about why they've abandoned their mission excuse anything?

    Because it shows that they haven't. They talked about the work they put into trying to make it modular.

    That's the opposite of what's happening though.

    For this one product, maybe. But again, this was one of the four products they announced yesterday.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
    •
  • [–] 0 points 2 years ago* (last edited 2 years ago) (5 children)

    It's not marketing if you can buy them.

    ...yes? It is? Why would you market a product that no one can buy? LOL

    Because most companies do.

    And that means they should?

    They talked about the work they put into trying to make it modular.

    "Aw sorry, we really tried to make something" doesn't cut it. If you can't do it, don't do it. Simple as.

    But again, this was one of the four products they announced yesterday.

    How many products that are antithetical to their entire stated purpose do they need to make before you see that as a red flag?

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago* (4 children)

    ...yes? It is?

    Sorry. It's not just marketing if you can buy them.

    And that means they should?

    Of course not! What do you think I'm arguing for? I'm saying that if they were trying to make some kind of sneaky change, they wouldn't have taken five minutes to talk about it in their big event.

    "Aw sorry, we really tried to make something" doesn't cut it. If you can't do it, don't do it. Simple as.

    This ignores the realities of running a company. Once you've sunk development dollars into a project, you can't just walk away from it. You have to recoup your investments somehow, or you just end up hemorrhaging money and go out of business and can't do anything ever again.

    How many products that are antithetical to their entire stated purpose do they need to make before you see that as a red flag?

    Well it needs to not be a single component in a product that's a tiny minority of their business, for one thing.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 2 years ago (3 children)

    I'm saying that if they were trying to make some kind of sneaky change, they wouldn't have taken five minutes to talk about it in their big event.

    I'm not worried at all about them being "sneaky", I am worried about them abandoning their mission. Being upfront about why they're doing that changes nothing.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
    •
  • [–] 1 point 2 years ago* (2 children)

    You're ignoring everything else I said because you don't agree with one semantic point of a partial response, so here it is again.

    Most of the time, a company can't afford to just not release a product they worked on. They talked about why it didn't turn out the way they wanted to in the announcement stream (the laws of physics), but assuming they had already done the investment into the R&D to produce the box, they can't just decide "never mind." If they do it too much, they go out of business.

    EDIT: also, you said "bit by bit" in your original message. You don't do things bit by bit if you're not trying to be sneaky.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
    •
  • [–] -2 points 2 years ago (1 child)

    you don't agree with one semantic point

    This has nothing to do with semantics.

    a company can't afford to just not release a product they worked on

    I already addressed this above.

    They talked about why it didn't turn out the way they wanted

    And I talked about how I don't care why. And neither should you.

    You don't do things bit by bit if you're not trying to be sneaky.

    Yes? You do. Changing the entire direction of a company doesn't happen overnight, regardless of whether you want to be sneaky or not.

  • permalink
  • fedilink
  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
    •