We just tried — and tore down — the Framework Laptop 13 Pro.

Modular laptops are less a consumer-electronics story than a margin-structure story: they shift value from opaque assembly and replacement cycles toward higher-margin parts, service, and ecosystem lock-in. That tends to reward the companies that control interfaces, firmware, and certified components, while pressuring incumbents whose business model depends on full-device replacement every 3-4 years. Over time, this is a subtle but real competitive threat to premium OEMs because it reframes repairability as a purchase criterion for enterprise IT and sustainability-focused buyers.

The second-order effect is on channel economics. If repair and upgrade adoption scales, accessory and component attach rates improve, but the total addressable market for full notebook units can flatten as average refresh spend migrates from $1,000+ device replacement to $100-$300 incremental upgrades. That is bullish for firms with modular supply chains and direct-to-consumer distribution, and bearish for OEMs with heavy reliance on retail channels and inventory turns. It also creates a longer-duration warranty liability overhang for builders that cannot engineer field serviceability cleanly.

The contrarian view is that repairability is still a niche adoption curve unless enterprises standardize procurement around total cost of ownership, not just sticker price. The near-term catalyst is not consumer demand but policy: right-to-repair regulation, government/education procurement, and corporate ESG mandates can accelerate adoption over 6-24 months. The main risk is execution—if modular designs are meaningfully bulkier, pricier, or less reliable, the market will treat them as virtue-signaling rather than a scalable platform shift.