"Most people" don't upgrade individual components of their desktop or spend thousands on their computer either, especially beyond the storage and RAM, so I'm not sure who the average person it's supposed to comfort that it's official vs not to do things as small as upgrade the screen out of cycle from upgrading the rest of the machine. Framework is, unfortunately, positioned in every way for exactly the type of person who would do this (high end, willing to assemble, Linux compatibility, customization - it's all exactly that kind of power user target). I mean I'd like it to make sense, it just doesn't.

Same with replacing parts vs customizing them on equivalent "standard" laptops. I've had to replace the keyboard on my laptops due to failure/damage once in the last 10 years, each time it took less than 15 minutes. Would it be nice if it was 3 minutes? Sure, but how much is 12 minutes really worth paying for and what do I lose for it in terms of the sturdiness problems with Framework.

Barring the decision to go with something like the 395 where standard RAM wouldn't make sense for it anyways (which is why Framework didn't make the RAM modular in the desktop version) there is nothing special about Framework that lets you reuse RAM between upgrades giving Framework an advantage. Every other normal x86 laptop I've ever used has had swappable RAM I've taken advantage of without paying $1800 for even the entire laptop, let alone the upgrade board.

There is some subjective preference in it all of course, but it seems that is just for a lot fewer people than it might have seemed. I.e. I don't see average people buying $500 laptops ever going for this and it almost feels like it has already reached its peak interest in the tech crowd too.