• Valmond@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    3 months ago

    Nice, but isn’t that a whole lot of failure points? I remember a mobile phone based on the same idea and I always felt it could not be very sturdy with all the connectics.

    • Captain Aggravated@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      3 months ago

      In Framework’s case, the port modules slide into rails in the chassis and click into a latch. They’re surrounded on four sides by the chassis of the laptop only exposed on the bottom and the outboard edge where the port is. The USB-C port on the motherboard is actually relieved of most if not all of the strain.

      Take a typical machine, like a Macbook Air or this little Lenovo Ideapad I’ve got. The USB ports on the side are mounted either directly to the motherboard which spans the whole chassis, or a separate daughterboard connected with a ribbon cable. Now plug a USBC to HDMI dongle into that, and then a thick, heavy HDMI cable off of that. The weight of all of this is now being supported by the solder joints holding that USBC port to the circuit board. On a Framework laptop, effectively what’s happening is the USBC to HDMI dongle is being braced by the chassis so the little USBC connection isn’t bearing the weight of the HDMI cable. So I think Framework’s solution is less prone to damage in practice.

      Furthermore, do you know how many laptops I’ve seen that had dongles sticking out of a port that were dropped on that dongle, destroying that USB port? Framework’s solution does two things: Puts adapter dongles inboard of the chassis meaning no vulnerable protrusions, and if you do have, say, a Logitech Unifying Transciever sticking out of a USB-A port adapter, and it gets dropped on that corner and it destroys the port, it will be the removable module that gets damaged, not the motherboard port. So go to their store, buy another $9 port module, and swap it out yourself.

      I imagine it doesn’t work so much in a phone for a few reasons. Phones are a lot smaller and internal space is more precious, so user level connectors would take up a lot of room. Phones are some of the most abused electronics out there since we handle them nearly constantly, so ideally they’d be carved out of solid granite. We’re talking about attaching larger overall pieces of the device together with a phone, instead of clipping a module in you’re talking about attaching a quarter of the device. And, mostly, no one was really asking for that kind of functionality in a phone.

      • Valmond@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 months ago

        Seems like a lot of hassle to me for not very much benefits. I mean I have never broken an inbuilt usb port, but connectics are quite often getting unreliable and glitchy, even sometimes inside a phone or laptop.

        Thanks for the rundown though and it feels like a fun tinker laptop, cheers :-)

        • Captain Aggravated@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          2
          ·
          3 months ago

          the way they market it is "most laptops these days have like 2 USBC ports on one side and that’s it. it’s has 4 ports, two on each side, that can be anything you want.

          • Valmond@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            1
            ·
            3 months ago

            Stop beating a dead horse, I got the idea.

            If you need X usb ports buy a laptop with X usb ports man or switch the ethernet port for one I guess. I just don’t think the idea is appealing enough, for me it’s like having inbuilt dongles with a point of failure each.

            You like it? Go get one!