Even if you will, the entire premise of upgradeability is massively overblown.
Let’s say you want to upgrade your Framework laptop after two years to something more modern, like the Intel Meteor Lake. So you spend $700+ on a new mainboard and $100+ on a new DDR5 RAM. Great, right? But you still have an old laptop with most of it out of warranty, your battery life is crap (so add $60-10l for a new one) etc.
Or you could sell your old MacBook Air for $400-500 and get a new one for $1400 or so (total cost essentially the same) and get a complete new machine with warranty, new display tech, three times longer battery life, likely better performance and so on. So… why would you even bother with competent upgradeability if the end eff3ct is objectively worse?
I think this obsession with upgrade comes more from the
lack of repairability of more modern computers than strict upgradability. Manufacturers have taken that away for no good reason, especially those who don't make razor-thin margins. Paltry, 1-year warranties are not even convincing.
Battery replacement ability: since it's usually the first part to give, accessible, non-glued battery should be mandatory. I don't buy the "but batteries are dangerous, they shouldn't be touched by clumsy end-users!"; of course, even more so when they're so tightly glued that prying and solvent becomes involved. Bending a Li-Ion battery isn't the safest way to handle them. (Never tried, as 2012 MBP use a screwed, hard shell battery)
CPU upgradability: may be useful when one cannot afford the latest tech right now (usually overpriced when first available), but still wants to extract more life out of a given platform a few years down the road.
Upgraded for $15: LG R510 CPU. Yes, that's a 12 year old platform. Plenty of room inside to work.
Will be upgraded in about 2 years: ThinkPad T440p. One of the last ThinkPads with replaceable CPU.
MacBook Pro: not upgradeable since it's soldered, but dosdude1 has tried and succeeded in soldering a beefier CPU. I was astonished to read that 2019 era MacBook CPUs weren't even more powerful than my 2012 i7. Just that they used less power.
RAM upgradeability: that would be the very least. Apps don't get any lighter, and what comfortably fits today may not fit in 2-3 years, a user's usage pattern may change drastically. Not RAM but similar situation: a 16GB iPhone was comfortable until about 2 years ago. Just updating apps, and now they don't all fit.
Storage upgradeability: same reason. SSDs are expensive. I got my 512GB Samsung 850 back when it was still $400. At the time, that was the most I could afford. If I needed so much, I could get 8 times as much storage now. Same story for the 240GB AMD Radeon, the 120GB OWC. Plus, having to have a computer serviced whenever storage craps on you (recent Mac designs) is a very costly endeavour.
WiFi upgradeability: no, USB doesn't solve every problem. See the popularity of the threads about 802.11ac upgrade on 2012 MBP.
Upgraded for $30: LG R510. Has two mini PCIe slots inside.
I used to think that upgrading computers every 5 years was the norm for normal users, and 3 years for intensive uses, but that was back between the 90s and the 2010s. Some deep-pocketed users prefer to buy mid-range computers every 2 years, selling back the previous one, some others prefer gradual upgrades. Of course, there are still limitations on battery life since older CPUs consume more.