I was seduced by Apple Silicon after experiencing the exceptional battery life and performance. Those things are great, as are the screens and the speakers.
But I'm still excited about the Framework 12 because I don't love macOS. I don't need an alternative to beat Apple on every line of the spec sheet. I just need them to align with my values, support Linux well, and cross a certain "good enough" threshold. The latest laptops from Framework meet all of those requirements, and I'm excited to buy one after I've saved up enough money. I've missed Plasma for a long time. At the same time, I wouldn't even consider a MacBook Neo.
Yeah if your Macbook smells like that you need to be contacting Apple. That's obviously a manufacturing flaw. I've had multiple M series Mac pros from M1 up M5 and none of them have ever had an unpleasant smell.
Is it feasible to run Linux on the Apple hardware? Seems like that could meet your requirements, except possibly "align with my values." I saw https://asahilinux.org/ but don't know how usable it is, or whether the long battery life and hardware support is preserved.
Every generation of Mac has its own requirements that Asahi has to support through a painstaking process of reverse-engineering, so it lags behind quite a bit. Realistically it will probably be 2030 before you can use it on any current-generation Mac.
The current leadership team at Asahi decided to prioritize upstreaming their existing work over reverse engineering on newer systems.
Given that you can score a used M1 Air for half the price of a new Macbook Neo (and have Linux be supported), it's an even better value compared to the Framework, for those who prefer Linux.
I love the Asahi project and I'll probably keep my oldest M-series Mac around to continue to play with Asahi. But even for the oldest Macs it supports, the feature list is not quite complete. The way Apple does a lot of things is bespoke and involves a different division of labor between firmware and operating system than conventional UEFI systems. It's hard to support. I don't want to be required to wait years for features like full support for Thunderbolt docks, and I also want to give my money to a company that proactively supports Linux (e.g., sending hardware to kernel developers, FreeDesktop graphics driver developers, DE maintainers, and distro maintainers in advance of the release of new products) rather than always buying used or giving my money to a company that merely tolerates Linux support.
Again, I love the ambition of the Asahi project and what they've done. They're impressive hackers, and thousands of people will doubtless get years of happy Linux life out of their work— maybe including me! I have no complaints for them, and no wishlist I want to bring to them. In fact, I think maybe I should send them a donation or a kind email or both upon their next release.
But I want to give the bulk of my financial support to a computer vendor who offers me first-class, day-1 support for software environments that make me feel happy and respected. The Asahi team can't turn Apple into that by themselves.
I love Windows Arm. My latest machine, an Asus Zenbook A16 is great. 18 core Snapdragon X2 extreme, 48 GB of memory, and OLED screen--all for $1699. It feels very fast, faster than my 24-core Xeon desktop (though benchmarks would put my Xeon ahead) and has great "all-day" battery life.
You can remove the screws on the bottom and replace the battery (which is screwed in, too, no glue to peel) or the M.2 NVME which is enough "servicability" for me....
>I was seduced by Apple Silicon after experiencing the exceptional battery life and performance.
DHH showed the Framework laptops with latest Intel Panther Lake SoCs having similar battery life to AS Macs (~14 hours) under Omarchy linux while gaming benchmarks put their iGPUs in line or better than AMD's Ryzne SoCs at gaming.
The era of long battery life being the USP feature exclusive to Macbooks is slowly going away, especially if AMD pulls a similar move and heats up the competition.
Once the chip shortage from AI datacenters bubble pops, we could see even better SoCs from Intel, AMD, and even Qualcomm and Nvidia could join the ARM laptop battle in a serious way.
As nice as Apple's hardware is it's all undermined by who they are as a company, intentionally limiting their devices more and more while they relentlessly argue in courts and to regulators that we owe them more and more for using our devices.
Rosetta 2's retirement announcement was when I realized I won't buy another Mac, I'm not interested in a computer that is preoccupied with stopping me from running software. Work can buy them for me but I won't spend my money on a platform like that anymore.
Depending on how their Supreme Court argument goes in a few weeks I will stop buying an iPhone too, if they establish the precedent that any method of paying for Netflix deserves a $5/month fee then they will leverage that to extract the same fee everywhere else.
When is reasonable to stop supporting a platform that only hinders the user experience? Should they have supported PPC emulation forever? x86 is on the way out in for most consumer devices. Apple is usually a bit early to drop technologies, but still acknowledges and fixes real mistakes (USB-C-only laptops and the associated keyboards) when they impact customer experience.
Here I was thinking the problem with Windows was the dog-slow RAM hogs the team replaced most of the core applications with so they could serve web ads in the launcher and OS chrome. Silly me, the real problem with Windows is that it can run old apps if you still have the exe kicking around.
The other day i saw a slick scifi movie and really liked the interface in one of the random background terminals. I thought id recreate a working version of it. I snapped a screenshot on my iphone where i was watching, but lo it was blacked out? Same after several attempts. Ugh fine, go to my macbook, fire up netflix in a browser there,
screenshot from desktop. Nope. Still blacked out.
Its not just older architecture we are losing out on.
Bought the Framework 12 as my personal daily driver (limited hobby projects, Obsidian, light browsing) and for the hardware to grow with my use cases.
So even if I could get more bang for my buck with a Neo (yeah, I could), the tinkerability and repairability win over raw specs for what I actually use it for. Did I pay more for a less polished, less powerful machine? Yep. Is it enjoyable to use and fully capable of meeting my requirements? Yep.
Came to bikeshed but the video was more nuanced and fair than this title.
> Came to bikeshed but the video was more nuanced and fair than this title.
Same here. It isn't hard to justify buying something like the Framework 12 in principle.
I have bought multiple Framework computers and I continue to be a fan, not because it is the best in any single category. It is because I want computers to be bought and sold in the vision that the Framework folks seem to have.
When I purchase a Framework I'm not purchasing a single computer. I'm buying a laptop-of-Theseus that I can continue to use throughout the future. When parts get broken, or a fancy new part is better, I buy the parts and upgrade it rather than buy a whole new device.
I also run an operating system that is publicly developed and available.
You won't see these things on a spec sheet or influencer demo.
The point of the Framework is to run Linux, and not to be part of Apple's ecosystem. I don't want my computer to update itself without my permission, report telemetry to Apple, upload anything to any "cloud" or request that I log into something. If you don't think this is a big deal, wait until an age or identity verification law is passed somewhere, and Apple will enforce it against your will, on the computer that you bought and thought that you owned.
What Framework is trying to do feels like something that would've made more sense 10 years ago.
And the reason for that is b/c of Moore's Law approaching its end.
The way to manufacture more efficient compute now is do things like put DRAM closer to the chip and even closer integration between CPU and GPU. The fact that Apple can co-design their silicon such that the CPU and GPU can pull from the same pooled RAM is a major advantage over competitors. There are also latency and bandwidth benefits how they setup their RAM just from pure physics. And chip manufacturing is moving towards chiplets where you have cores manufactured separately and then wired together at nanoscale level on top of a silicon interposer.
The current best-practice unfortunately is closer to Apple's "hemetically sealed appliance" philosophy, and not the "I build my own PC" philosophy.
When you have CPU, GPU, and even DRAM sitting on the same "die" the only things you're going to be swapping out on your Framework laptop are going to be relatively trivial.
> CPU, GPU, and even DRAM sitting on the same "die"
This is actually great. The laptop body stays the same and you swap out a small mini circuit board that has the CPU + GPU + DRAM on it.
This is the point of the Framework laptops. They are just unfortunately stuck with non-Apple parts and thus are slow / inefficient.
Maybe Qualcomm can make a motherboard for Framework high end laptops with their Snapdragon X2 Elite Extreme ARM-based CPUs that are supposedly competitive with Apple's M4 offerings?
And then offer a cut down Qualcomm mobile phone CPU + GPU + DRAM offering for the Framework 12 so that it can compete on price/performance with the MacBook Neo?
I think you need to complete with Apple with the right equivalents.
Funny thing is, the circuit board on the Neo is barely smaller than that of the lowest end iPhone. The only remaining big cost item swappable item at that point is the display.
The benefits of modularity begin to get outweighed by the costs when 85% of the cost of the machine needs to be swapped out with each upgrade. For consumers, why would they not simply opt to spend the rest of the 15% to get a whole new computer?
> spend the rest of the 15% to get a whole new computer?
I can see why the manufacturer would want this. As a user though why would you? If the rest of the body is familiar and works well, why toss it?
Maybe the sentiment springs from the general culture of consumerism and new-is-better thinking, and historically that's been warranted in the consumer electronics space. Most things aren't really like that though. Humans have long built tools, clothing, furniture, and infrastructure designed to last a long time. You commit resources up front to make sure the thing is of high quality and then benefit for anywhere between decades to centuries. Replacement carries the risk of downgrading. Again, rapid technological advancement has blown this way of doing things away, but at some point parts of the tech plateau and this will need to be rediscovered. For things like keyboards, trackpads, and laptop cases, I don't see how "new" will beat "good" from this point on. Even displays are starting to reach limits. This seems like the right time to be working on "here is your reliable human interface device, drop in whatever crazy magic chip fabs have cooked up every X years to keep it capable."
From a humanist perspective there's another reason to move this way. People like to grow attached to objects and tools. Something has been lost in the shuffle of swapping out our most personal objects every few years.
Yeah, I think this is the right idea (or the most optimistic path towards M-series power/performance). If you wanted something fully/aggressively open you could do something like build a mainboard compatible with one of MNT's fully open SOMs like [1].
> The fact that Apple can co-design their silicon such that the CPU and GPU can pull from the same pooled RAM is a major advantage over competitors.
Lots of laptops have integrated graphics. And many recent CPUs have strong integrated graphics. They're not doing anything special there. I don't understand why that gets so much attention.
The special thing they do is having very wide bandwidth on the higher end models, to a CPU with integrated graphics. That doesn't affect the Neo though.
Shorter PCB traces because of insane timing requirements for DDR5, GDDR7, and beyond; GPUs put the memory chips as close as possible surrounding the CPU die to reduce the latency and prevent timing/signaling issues.
But even there, the fastest AI accelerator GPUs are putting memory on die, and using chiplet designs, to get the memory closer and closer to the cores.
> that the CPU and GPU can pull from the same pooled RAM is a major advantage over competitors
It can be an advantage, it also has downsides though. LPDDR5 is fairly slow as far as GPU memory goes, and on Apple Silicon it splits the bandwidth across the entire chipset. Many recent Macbooks have dGPU-tier hardware constrained by Wintel-laptop memory bandwidth.
And if Apple uses DDR5, why not CAMM? If Apple uses NVMe, why not M.2? Many of the advantages you've listed are marginal compared to the real-world constraints of the hardware, and cover up some boneheaded decisions that don't significantly impact the laptop's efficiency.
Right now, at this point in time, for applications like local AI and certain types of gaming, I would argue for most people having more VRAM is more useful than having faster VRAM.
I personally now do more AI stuff and gaming on my M5 mac with its 24 GB shared (300 GB/s) RAM pool than my 12 GB 5070 Ti (900 GB/s).
Apple still lives in its walled garden and defends it vociferously, but I would argue they have made the correct design tradeoffs for their business.
For applications like local AI and the majority of PC video games, you are not expected to have DDR5-level GPU bandwidth. It is a constraint, there is no "good enough" when you're selling a desktop-grade M5 Max that is bandwidth-constrained in practice. Modern gaming at native resolution is pretty much impossible on most Macbook Pros.
It's an acceptable approach for iPad-level stuff, but for professional workstations and desktops it's not competitive.
There is a segment of Framework's customer base which is ride-or-die for Linux, but it's not their entire customer base: they still exist in a market where they need to compete on features and cost. Before the Neo, that wasn't too bad because they were more-or-less at parity with Apple on cost, close enough on polish, and better on repairability. But the Neo is just so cheap, and with Apple's level of polish it's really tough to compete with.
The Neo costs the same as an on-sale Macbook Air, but doesn't support Asahi Linux. If any Framework customers were tempted by Apple hardware, they would have bought the Air a year ago and probably look at the Neo like it's a Fischer-Price laptop. Cost and polish aren't going to push sales for this market segment.
I love that Framework exists and I hope they succeed.
I have been recommending them to friends and family who are looking for Windows or Linux laptops, though with some reservations due to the problems with a couple of their models.
However I don't see the value in the Framework 12 over a MacBook Neo if someone isn't choosing by OS first. The $499 MacBook Neo is just so good for the price and so well built. The $499 price is the education price, which is relevant for the student in the story.
The upgradeability is a benefit of the Framework 12, but look at the premium you pay for that option: $799 versus $499 is a 60% premium paid up front. You could sell the MacBook Neo for $200 in a couple years and buy a next-generation MacBook Neo for probably a very similar financial to buying the Framework 12 and not upgrading it.
What a surprising idea! I have always and only ever chosen by OS first. Are there really a significant number of people willing to buy a computer with no concern for the type of software it will be able to run?
> Are there really a significant number of people willing to buy a computer with no concern for the type of software it will be able to run?
Most common software that typical buyers use is available on Mac or Windows: Web browsers, office software, maybe an e-mail client.
This is why Chromebooks are a viable option, too.
Even my software development workflows are mostly cross-platform when I think about it. I can run all of my IDEs and text editors on my Mac, Windows, and Linux computers.
> Most common software that typical buyers use is available on Mac or Windows
That's not how most people think. Most non-techies are either fluent with "how to use a Mac" or "how to use Windows" and they will just stick with that inertia.
For a lot of people, learning a new OS is an ordeal.
Also possible that people have paid for licenses / apps and thus want to stay with the OS those will run on, instead of having to pay again (if it's even an option).
What type of software will you not be able to run? Your browser will work just the same, and your dev env and devtools will be just the same, and it's a posix environment. If that's what I need most and it runs just about the same on macos/linux then why not prioritize the hardware?
It’s 2026 and what people don’t do in an app, they mostly do in a browser. An entire generation of “digital native” people are now adults who don’t even understand what a file system is, don’t understand folder structures, and don’t care what OS they run.
That said, having a computer that seamlessly integrates with their mobile device is a huge feature. So the MacBook neo not only being so affordable but fitting into the Apple ecosystem is a slam dunk for normal people
Most regular users do everything via the web, where there is little difference between the OSes. Gaming is the only thing that comes to mind where regular users notice a dramatic difference.
This. People really underestimate or straight up ignore resale value of Apple products. Just because you can upgrade a Framework laptop it doesn't make it a better value over the long term.
Can't believe the cost of the trash can mac pros. I always wanted one and put it on my long term to-do list, but they're still $500+. Even if they can be had for less, I won't buy one because my tolerance for tinkering has since dwindled. But it's quite a testament that they are still that expensive.
Framework needs an audience bigger than that because mostly people don't think in terms of ecosystem, they think in terms of 'does it do what I want for a cost I want to pay' and Apple wins on this.
That statement doesn't stand on its own. For example, the most popular OS for laptops at my place of work is Windows. It has very little to do with what people want or price. It has almost everything to do with ecosystem lock in.
A significant portion of windows laptop market share comes from corporate purchases.
Is this totally true? There is advertising, marketing spend and retail shelf space. Surely it's more complex than "solves users problem at price point."
This is a brutal (but polite -- classic US Midwestern Geerling 'kill them with kindness'!) side-by-side comparison. My heart goes out to the Framework Computer team. Any team trying to compete in this product space against the surprise from Mac Neo must feel crushed. That said, I am still very optimistic for Framework Computer. It seems like nerds are going wild for them.
I didn't watch the video but isn't the main selling point of the Framework line (from their website) "Designed for easy customization, upgrades, and repairs."
I would imagine the Mac Neo is a sealed unit that you use as-is until it's e-waste.
It's actually not bad? "The most repairable MacBook in years" means practically nothing. And for someone who might be comparing with a Framework, it's probably an insult.
Framework is and will always be a statement device. Like modern 4x4 suvs that only haul groceries and may never see dirt roads, the upgradability of a laptop is something few will ever exercise. Most people are buying the idea.
Maybe. My wife is non tech and after dropping her XPS and breaking the screen she was real interested in something that can have a replacement display installed in about half an hour. She wishes her F13 were a little slimmer like her XPS, but she gets a lot of peace of mind knowing that repairs something that "even" she could do.
I'd also say that Linux support basically from day 1 is their hidden killer feature. Literally zero fuss. That's mattering to a lot more people these days even if they don't daily drive Linux, it's a good plan B in case Windows manages to get even worse.
Most people who want a user-replaceable screen just buy a Thinkpad. I've replaced the screen on all two of the thinkpads i've owned over the last 16 years. I still have my X series from 2010; it still works, only an ant crawled between two layers of the screen and died near the center and after 7 years it was time for an upgrade. It also ran (still runs) linux just fine due to that one guy at RedHat (who very recently retired) who maintained so many of the drivers for the world. I never needed anything more complicated than a philips head screwdriver to replace the screen, ram, keyboard, hard disk, or battery. And you can get parts for a thinkpad in most countries you're likely to visit.
It may be less valuable now because of RAM/SSD prices, but I was able to benefit from my framework's modularity on Day 1 by saving hundreds of dollars by buying those components a la carte Instead of paying the heavily marked up prices some vendors charge for upgrades.
my partner is a non-tech woodworker and fucking brutal on hardware, so she was addicted to Chromebooks. they cost nearly nothing, they came in weird small form factors, and they had a knack for lasting forever.
she had a day job that required her to use an older Mac and it was a relative pain in her ass that put her off Macs at home. I had a pile of retired laptops and kept trying to find one that would sway her off google.
she expressed interest in drawing functions so I started with a Lenovo Yoga. Windows wasn't an issue as soon as she figured out that she could sign into Chrome and just stay in it like a chromebook. but it was too big, too heavy, too glossy, and crashed too often. she also ended up cracking the screen in 2 months, and while the display was replaceable, the stylus digitizer part never worked again, which eliminated the one compelling feature.
next one we tried was an M1 MBA, which had all the things she hated about her work laptop. she also destroyed one of its USBC ports after 3 days, despite getting a protective cover for it, and it never consistently charged again after that. got donated in the end.
during this time I decided to upgrade my FW13 mainboard and instead picked up another full DIY kit to get the updated hinge, screen, and bottom chassis. The old Ryzen mainboard got the SSD and 2 x 8GB RAM pulled from the Yoga, and I offered it to her as an interim until she found something she liked.
she was mixed on it, but it stood up to her. what sold her on it was that when she dropped it on a concrete floor and bent the bottom chassis near the expansion ports, I just bought her a new bottom chassis and linked her to the replacement video. She had it swapped out in an hour and a half, her first solo computer repair.
so now her top two laptops of all time are:
- that shitty 10" Acer chromebook, still, because it was 10" and matte and about $60
- the FW13, which she's since added about 2 pounds of stickers to and also upgraded the hinge and battery on herself
most people are buying the idea, yeah. we have to, in order to show other people what the idea means in practice
You're probably right for most people. But in laptops I've owned, I've done stuff like upgrade storage, upgrade/add RAM, swap out the WiFi module for one that has better OS driver support, replace batteries.
Every single one of them has seen repairs like screen replacement and hinge improvement. Every single one has had upgrades to storage, RAM, and CPU -- and at least one battery replacement. Ye olde Thinkpad is presently one hairy-looking BIOS flash away from a wifi upgrade.
I usually buy these machines inexpensively on the used market. And I'd love to buy an inexpensive Framework. Except... The supply/demand ratio seems to be in favor of the seller, as they seem to hold their value surprisingly well compared to many other machines.
Anyway, I don't want one for style points. I want one so I can keep it even longer than the Thinkpads and Dells of yore.
How would one know though by just looking at the device? I have chassis that came with Intel 11th gen, but the brainboxery, keyboard, battery, touchpad -- all have been swapped over time.
If you're ideologically willing to use a Mac, you're really not the market that the Framework is targeting. Apple has always had some of the best hardware. Where they really struggle is in respecting user choice and allowing power users to alter their systems. The Neo is an appliance. The Framework is a tool. They're fundamentally intended for different people.
If your choice of platform is driven by hardware instead of software, and you really like tablet mode, check out a Surface Pro. They're decent tablets that run full Windows/Linux instead of some neutered tablet OS, with a keyboard you can attach to use like a laptop.
They might disagree with that framing, but it does seem to be the majority of folks I see who are interested in them.
And I'm not saying that as a negative - my Framework 13 is my favorite laptop by a fairly wide margin, but it's clearly not at the hardware level of my work issued mac.
Apple produces fantastic hardware. It's a shame I can't stand them as a company, and that they cripple that hardware with their OS.
Prior to framework, I'd be buying something along the lines of a Dell XPS (developer edition for linux compatibility) because a mac is just a non-starter for me. But a mac hands-down the best hardware you can get for a personal laptop right now. Turns out that's not the main driver of what laptop I want.
> But a mac hands-down the best hardware you can get for a personal laptop right now
That's pretty much almost always been the case with Mac laptops though. Last Intel gen(s) aside for heat at the top end.
I find that Apple's overall build quality, display and touchpads have pretty much always been second to none... I like the keyboards on most Thinkpads, especially historically, more than Apple's though. That said, being able to run Linux proper has become a higher priority... I plan to continue using my M1 air until it dies or I can't stand it anymore... but I bought it with 16gb ram and a bigger drive, so it does what I need and then some.
I don't "work" on it, so that isn't a big deal and I can remote edit in VS Code to my desktop via wireguard+ssh wherever I am with internet access. That could be a differentiator, but my vision is so bad, I probably won't be able to get away with the maxed out display on any laptop eventually.
> That's pretty much almost always been the case with Mac laptops though
I think that's a Rosy take. I remember the macs from before the intel generation, and they were hardware garbage (there's a reason they finally gave up and went to intel)
Then the intel macs were nice looking exteriors with very lackluster internals.
So for a long time it genuinely was an overpriced laptop from a performance point of view.
I'd say it really wasn't until the M1 that Apple has been at the top on both sides of the hardware equation.
But they are there now. I'm waiting to see if we get some real competition opening up in that space (hopefully).
I guess it's hard for me to judge, I never really used Macs during the PowerPC era... I used the prior generation when I was at school sometimes, but not much. Mostly a PC user most of the time until well after the Intel transition.
But even if the performance wasn't great, they did have very good displays, and touchpads with good keyboards and better than most speakers. A lot of laptops didn't come close to that portion of the experience at least at the base pricing, which IMO matters. That physical level of interface is what has had me use Apple more than most other factors.
I'd say there's definitely a lot of competition from Apple... I'd even say the Neo is a surprisingly good option for a lot of people... too many compromises, imo, for anyone doing technical work though. But even a base model M1 Air is also pretty good value.
> The Neo is an appliance. The Framework is a tool.
I get where you're coming from in principle, but I'm not sure to what audience this actually applies. If you just want a laptop that can run the software you use, both are adequate as tools. The Framework's greater flexibility only applies to making changes to the tool itself, which doesn't matter if you didn't need to change it to suit your purposes. (And I say that as someone who has built their own Linux & Windows PCs from parts since high school, because I know I'm not the target audience for a Neo)
It's like I consider my Dewalt power drill a very decent tool because it has exactly the modularity I need -- it even has interchangeable batteries -- and it wouldn't even occur to me to call it an outright appliance even if another power drill offered more customization for some niche use case. The Neo is an adequate tool for many people even if other tools do offer more customization or maintainability.
This would be a much stronger argument against using an iPad for productivity, because many people simply cannot run the software they need, or only at a significant expense to productivity and quality of life. I use iOS devices only as communication and media terminals, and even then I would struggle to call them appliances, they're still tools for their particular tasks.
True, I was being a bit loose with my terminology. Some tools reward customization more than others. Machine tools and 3d printers are often used to produce parts, mods, and upgrades for themselves, for example. Screwdrivers aren't usually used to work on themselves though.
The principle I was trying to express is that a Framework (and Linux, for that matter) is a tool more like a mill or an older 3d printer from the RepRap era. You will get the most out of it if you spend time customizing it, altering it, upgrading it, understanding it, etc. A MacBook Neo is a tool more like a screwdriver or a power drill. It is immediately fit for its purpose, even if that purpose isn't quite as wide ranging.
It feels a bit odd to compare them directly across categories. The MacBook Neo feels like it should be compared to a Chromebook or a cheap Windows laptop, not a high-end Linux-first upgradable machine. That's like comparing a Dewalt power drill to a 1930s drill press. They can both drill a hole... but they're just not the same tool, and I (personally) wouldn't expect to use them in the same way.
Framework's hero image when you build the laptop is someone removing the keyboard to tinker with the machine.[1] If you don't intend to do that, then yeah, it's probably not the choice for you. If you are indifferent between macOS and Linux, then it's probably not the choice for you.
One thing I miss from when I mained workstation-class Linux laptops is indeed just how tinkerable they were, in a way that didn't feel like a compromise because no other workstation-class laptop was smaller, and smaller laptops had limited performance. You could upgrade RAM and replace a HDD with an SSD, you could drop in a PCMCIA card, you could bring interchangeable batteries, etc.
I appreciate that Framework has not only brought that back but expanded on it further, but they've done it at a very different time in the market. Now that maintainability and customizability does come at a compromise to at least one of cost, bulk, or performance. That's not only the case when compared to the Neo, as far as I know it's also the case at the high end compared to a MacBook Pro.
They've set out to do something that would be difficult in any case, but they're also doing it against Apple's advantages of vertical integration and economy of scale. I'm sure I'm not the only person that can deeply respect that while still not feeling any interest in buying any of their available products.
Well, if Apple killed it, Lenovo killed it even more. I recently was looking for a laptop for a student. The Lenovo E14 Gen7 is 800 Euros here in Germany (where prices are always higher, the MacBook Neo is 700 Euros), it has 16GB of RAM, 1TB SSD, a 2.8k IPS display, a Intel Ultra5 12core CPU, and it has a repairability score of 9/10 from ifixit. Framework doesn't even come close to that package.
Framework is definitely premium-priced, but I don't think most people are cross-shopping the Framework 12 (a 12" convertible tablet) and the Thinkpad E14 (a 14" dedicated laptop).
No such model exists. The Framework 13 comes closest, but a 13" screen and a premium shell would compete more directly with the Thinkpad X13.
Direct price comparisons get tricky because different buyers care about different details. I really like the Thinkpad's Trackpoint, for example, but I also like the Framework's 3:2 aspect ratio. I'd have a hard time choosing.
Same thought, as an owner of a similar Lenovo, that's top bang for the buck. Also, matte screen and hinge that opens 180 degrees is something the Neo and most Macs doesn't have.
Though I assume the Apple clientele is always different than those shopping for PCs, and doesn't care about specs, they just want MacOS and the Apple ecosystem, most likely they already have an iPhone or are planning to get one anyway so then a Macbook is the only thing on their radar. Those people aren't really shopping for PCs anyway unless they need some Windows/Linux exclusive apps like CAD/CAE.
But if you want to run linux and game then that Lenovo would be a good deal.
Similar to the Framework, it has its own niche clientele who values the company motto, tinkering and repairability aspects way more than the value proposition. Most likely they run Linux too.
It is funny how Mac OS is a draw for some, when it is the main reason I don't use a Mac. Their hardware is excellent, but when I've tried using a Mac as my main machine, my productivity suffered. The only part of the Apple ecosystem I wish I could get on Windows is iMessage, and maybe FaceTime.
> The only part of the Apple ecosystem I wish I could get on Windows is iMessage, and maybe FaceTime.
It annoys me that these are such a draw. There are a dozen other viable messaging and video call apps, but there's always someone who feels like spending two minutes to install and activate one is a major imposition.
Uncles don’t let relatives buy less than 16gb ram. That has been my standard since ~2010 and our 2013 mbp is still running fine because I insisted on it.
I prefer FW for freedom reasons, that’s worth a few hundred as well as the ram. Would also wait for the new intel chipset that is more efficient however.
Finally I think the FW 12 is weirdly positioned, as the 13 is already thin and light. For a tablet, I recommend the Star Labs Starlite instead. Both in same package? Clunky.
Guess I’d recommend a used FW 13 and Starlite instead. That’s what I have now and no real reason to upgrade, and freedom to tinker is off the charts, perfect for a student.
> Uncles don’t let relatives buy less than 16gb ram. That has been my standard since ~2010 and our 2013 mbp is still running fine because I insisted on it.
Just last weekend I bought 8gb ram thinkpad t14 for an elderly relative. 240 EUR.
It replaces his thinkpad x220 where the fan and ssd slowly dies.
I doubt it becomes an issue, and if it does then I can upgrade it later.
I have a Framework 12 and I absolutely love it. It's cute and super portable, and the 12-inch form factor is just perfect.
Sure, the hardware might not be the newest, but it's more than enough for me since I mostly do remote development. Plus, it has 48 GB of RAM, which lets me load the entire system into memory, making it feel super responsive.
But what I love most is how durable it is, which matters a lot because I'm honestly pretty careless with my stuff. Just yesterday, I grabbed my backpack off the table without realizing it was open. My Framework went flying across the entire room and slammed into the wall, and there wasn't even a single scratch on it. An aluminum laptop would've had a nasty dent at the very least.
And even if the whole frame had shattered, I could just order a new one for 55 dollars. Same story with the keyboard. One of the keys was making this annoying clicking sound, so I just detached it, stuck a little piece of tape underneath, and it was good as new. I only felt comfortable doing that because I knew that worst case, I could get a whole new keyboard for 55 dollars.
Honestly, not having to handle my laptop carefully is worth so much to me. I also don't stress about battery care, whatever to preserve long-term battery life, because replacing the battery costs, you guessed it, 55 dollars.
The repair ability is why I went with a Framework. My last two laptops had keyboards that lasted until a few months after the warranty. Rest of the laptop works, but I can't find replacement keyboards at a reasonable price. So a framework, and I bought a spare keyboard upfront on the off chance they go bankrupt.
I wish Framework had released a gamepad or a printer instead of a keyboard. I get that they need to expand their ecosystem and revenue stream, but keyboard just wasn't it for me. There are so many good reliable cheap keyboards already, though I guess none with the touchpad, but again just not for me.
The gamepad I think would have been the killer device. Look at how much attention the steam gamepad gets. Sure, I have two gamepads already and I use them to play games on a dedicated (framework) computer hooked up to the living room TV. But guess what doesn't work? Turning the computer/TV on with the gamepad. It's so small, but so frustrating, also anytime the screens go off or sleep. So I have to keep a little $10 wireless keyboard there to turn the TV on / wake the computer.
It is such a shame, too, because what Framework has achieved at this pricepoint should be commended. The fact that their business can sustain a lower-margin SKU like the Framework 12 is nothing short of extraordinary! But wow, the MacBook Neo threw a bomb into the low-end market.
> the Mac is faster (in most cases), more efficient, quieter, built better, has a much nicer display, and costs much less.
The Framework is more expensive, slower (in most cases), louder (its fan ramps up quite often), has a pretty poor display, but it is a touchscreen, has a 360° hinge, and is more repairable and upgradeable.
I have a 12 and the screen is fine. It's no OLED but I have no complaints for what it is. I love it as a secondary tablet-laptop for drawing and reading comics (primary laptop is a Framework 16 which I'm also in love with for Unity3D game dev and similar tasks, that one needs Windows for Visual Studio but I'm enjoying Gentoo on the 12)
The framework 12 is the ideal couch device for a developer, in ultra power saving mode it’s good enough for most websites, and it having a quickly getting hot 13th gen intel cpu means you also got a dev machine on the low end spectrum, not a vm, but an actual piece of hardware a typical user might have and not some 32 thread 64 gb monster
it remains my pet peeve that the 12 and 13 didn't find a clever way to share a mainboard by ditching the expansion cards on one side and just exposing the USBC ports. I would've sacrificed a lot to be able to just move my mainboard intact to another chassis if I needed the features. (which is exactly what I'll be doing with the 13 Pro, and IMO should've been a top goal of the 12)
A truck will always be a worse car than a car, the question is do you need a car or a truck? If you need a car, get a Neo, if you need a truck, get a Framework. They’re not competing past that initial question.
The title should read 'it's hard to justify buying any other laptop than the Neo in the sub $1000 space'. It's an absolute unit of a computer; the only more revolutionary box would be the M1 Air (or the original Air. maybe. my vote is on the M1.)
I understand Jeff's argument, but he is missing the fact that one of the features of the Framework 12 is the modularity of the components. So if that is not a valued feature in this scenario, sure it's hard to justify.
I love building and upgrading stuff as well as paying (much) more for tools that will last. But this is a laptop not a socket set, paying (a lot) more for worse performance up front makes absolutely no sense. Seems like the argument should be the Framework 12 just shouldn’t exist.
I think what makes the perspective in the article interesting is that buying individual components a la carte isn't a good value in today's market. Sure you can upgrade the RAM and SSD in the Framework, but 16 GB of laptop DDR5 is $200 and a 1 TB 2230 SSD is another $200. The question becomes, is it worth it to spend 40% more for a laptop with 40% less performance (as well as worse build quality, a worse screen, worse speakers, worse battery life, and running hotter) so you can have the potential to spend half the price of the laptop to upgrade it in the future?
I really want a Framework 12, but not in current incarnation. Hoping for an upgrade with aluminum body. I don't mind the pricepoint. But didn't want a plastic notebook at this point. Want a great couch computer for surfing the net, ssh'ing to machines, writing, etc....
What I surprisingly really miss, is my macbook air 11".
But probably won't be surprised if I end up with a Framework 13 Pro once they're caught up on delivery. I'm really hoping they have an announced 12 revision by then, though.
I had a MacBook Air 11" back in the day. 2nd or 3rd generation, I can't remember. The one that didn't stutter on YouTube. Amazing machine! I had always wished the screen was slightly bigger though. The insanely large bezel was a waste of space.
All of these, and more. Macbook Neos benefit from all the hardware that Apple makes in-house, reusing CPUs that they already make for iPhones but didn't make the cut, have zero upgradeability, benefit from massive economies of scale, contracts are already signed in advance, the delivery and logistics of an existing chain...
Framework has to go talk to Intel and AMD, get parts shipped, assembled onto a motherboard that they have to make themselves and ordered in very low amounts then shipped all to their fulfillment center, then fedexed, have to source components... Even not taking into account the fact that Apple already has all of the hardware made or available in-house, just the supply and logistics chain is an easy 10% of the final price.
Efficiencies of scale and experience, on multiple levels.
Component sourcing is the most obvious thing - Apple is known to buy up inventory years in advance for example and at insane quantities. TSMC's last new node? Apple paid billions to be the initial and, most importantly, exclusive customer. With hundreds of billions of dollars in cash and liquid assets, Apple can afford to sit on "dead money" for years - a small shop like Framework can't.
As for the Neo specifically, this thing shouldn't even exist, but Apple found themselves sitting on a stash of half defective iPhone SoCs. But instead of trashing them, they effectively recreated the netbook market segment...
The MacBook Neo is just the response to the question of "what do we do with all these binned iPhone chips without making yet another even lower cost iPhone?"
I'm sorry but sometimes performance is not everything. Apple silicon - great except you are now in the Apple walled garden with all the consequences of it. Not to mention perpetually subpar developer experience without the rich Linux/Docker ecosystem. Yes, I know it is getting better but for developers there are still many warts. We just retired the last OSX laptops from my dev team because they were unproductive trying to work around some Docker limitations on OSX/Apple silicon.
Eh, I think the framing isn't quite right here. The Neo is a wonderful machine but if you want to upgrade it you're out of luck, the damn thing is sealed shut. By comparison the Framework lets you upgrade individual components over time to keep your system up to date without buying a whole new one.
Maybe that doesn't matter for the godson. But it's an important differentiator: the Framework is a (semi) premium product with premium features. If you don't intend to use those features, paying the premium rarely makes sense.
I think this model works for the 13 and 16, because you're already buying a good laptop that you can keep longer by upgrading. The 12's base specs and more than that the experience is pretty bad. The screen and speakers are terrible.
The 13 also targets people buying it for themselves and who value ownership. The 12 targets the education market and how many 14 year olds are sensitive to ownership, repairability and e-waste? If they are they would probably get something better second hand. You'd have to have a parent that is sensitive to this issue and is also willing to force down this bad laptop onto their children instead of whatever they prefer.
I love Framework, and the bet to try to win over the education market was worth making but the execution is so poor that I don't think it works out.
The MacBook Neo will happily last you the 4 years of highschool and maybe your bachelor.
The 12 for me has a very strong appeal as a smartphone / tablet replacement.
I've had smartphones and/or tablets for approaching 20 years now, and they've always struck me as very frustrating compromises. Mostly Android, but some use of iOS as well, and yes, the OS (in both cases) is fundamental to the limitations.
I've also used MacOS heavily (I'm on it now), and I don't like it, relative to Linux.
The Framework Laptop 12 is smaller than my most recent tablet (a 13.3" e-ink), though somewhat more massive. It frees myself from a plethora of Android limitations, crapware, inconsistencies, and the non-repairability of the hardware itself (presently an issue). It gives a real-computer experience, with some compromises for size, but I'm pretty sure that's a net win.
Paired with a limited-feature phone and possibly a few dedicated devices for specific uses (camera, audio recorder), I'm good.
And the 12 should provide an easy decade of service.
That might be true to some extent but what about the current product? It's nice to tell yourself that you can upgrade it in the future but the best of what the product is today isn't a great value, will the future upgrade make it better? Should we purchase a product today on what it might be tomorrow?
I think Jeff is correct when he says, "for an overall worse experience, are you willing to pay 20-40% more?". That's a tough sell. I think the only reason for me to take the Framework 12 over the Neo would be because I want to advocate for a world where upgradability and repairability are common things.
I don't think the idea is that the upgrade will take it from decent to stellar compared to other things you might be able to buy for the same money, it's about paying a bit extra now to be able to go from decent-in-2026 to decent-in-2031 while paying a fraction of the cost that you would buying a full replacement in 2031, not to mention saving a bunch of waste. And then in 2036, and 2041, and 2046... They haven't been around long enough to be confident it'll work out that way, but that's the bet in my mind.
For lots of things, yeah. Don't try to fold proteins or open Facebook or whatever, but if you want to run a 3d printer or make some drawings or organize a bunch of notes and docs it would be way more than enough.
> The Neo is a wonderful machine but if you want to upgrade it you're out of luck, the damn thing is sealed shut. By comparison the Framework lets you upgrade individual components over time to keep your system up to date
The Framework 12 in the story costs $799, a $300 premium over the $499 MacBook Neo.
So you're paying an extra $300 up front for the option of spending more to upgrade it in the future, and getting a slower computer during that time.
That's a 60% premium to have the ability to upgrade a slower laptop.
Alternatively, they could sell the MacBook Neo for $200 in a couple years and buy a next-gen MacBook Neo and they'd still come out ahead.
Some people value upgradeability to an extreme, but I can't see a justification for spending a 60% premium to buy a worse product just to be able to maybe upgrade it in a few years. This is a starter laptop.
The neo isn't upgradeable, but it also isn't sealed shut. It's actually one of Apple's most repairable devices. If I were in the market for this class of device, I personally would still go with Framework for a variety of reasons, but I still think it's important to give apple praise for the pro-consumer choices they made (and probably could have gotten away without) in the Neo.
Oh no, that didn't matter to anyone[1], who would've thought!
Meanwhile AAPL goes brrr ...
It's sad because by the time other laptop manufacturers understand what people really want, Apple will have a 20 year lead on them. Hard to catch up with that.
1: Ok, 0.01% of consumers is not exactly "anyone" but close.
The problem with Apple laptop is few years into the future - it's what will happen when Apple drop support for this hardware in OS X. Even if Asahi Linux or similar will be in a good enough state, you will still have to go through pain of adjusting to new system, moving data, figuring out how to access your iCloud/time machine/etc...
Unfortunately for Framework, people who think this way make poor customers - can't justify buying Framework while my Lenovo X230 is working fine.
I tried using refurb'd Thinkpads as my travel machine for a long time - they're very brittle hard to fix laptops - kinda like Macbooks.
The Framework on the other hand is so easy to work on and get parts for - I know this isn't probably a main selling point for most users, but if you need this, Framework is like the only game in town.
If you're not willing to pay a 20% premium for upgradability/fixability, then you don't _really_ want it. And that's fine!
The Neo is an example of how this tradeoff should work: You lose flexibility but gain a lower price. For other Apple laptops, the price is on the high end and also you lose flexibility. This seeming contradiction is what helped open up the market opportunity for Framework.
(To complicate my argument a bit, it happens to be the case that the Neo is actually, for a Macbook, highly repairable, but the original article doesn't actually mention this so presumably they didn't think much about that. https://www.ifixit.com/News/116152/macbook-neo-is-the-most-r... )
(Also, I'm not putting down the overall value of pricier Macbooks. You get other things in return for those prices, they are still a good value and I own some Macbooks, I'm just looking at the price <-> repairability axis here... The Neo is a particularly clear example of price vs repairability)
> If you're not willing to pay a 20% premium for upgradability/fixability, then you don't _really_ want it. And that's fine!
$799 versus $499 is a 60% premium.
The best case numbers are buying used RAM and SSD for the Framework like Jeff did in the article ($749 total, if you can find the RAM at those prices) and comparing against the non-EDU MacBook Neo at $599. That's still a 25% premium.
> and actually want the extended warranty/applecare
The Framework warranty is only 1 year, same as the MacBook Neo.
If you add AppleCare+ to the MacBook Neo you could get a 3-year warranty laptop for $739 that performs better than the $799 Framework 12
> Now pretend you want to bump up to 16gb of ram so you can run a VM.
I don't think the students shopping for a MacBook Neo are going to be heavy VM users on their little laptop, but if I do this on their website the price bumps to $1049
$1049 is within $50 of a MacBook Air with 16GB of RAM and much better CPU, display, build quality, and battery life.
But bumping to 16gb ram means buying new hardware, moving over your profile/configuration and then trying to sell your old hardware, losing money on the trade... vs just upgrading the ram.
I'm not saying don't buy a Neo... I'm just saying there are objective reasons why you might not want to... for me, it's that I would prefer to run a Linux distro on whatever I buy. I might just go for a Lenovo IdeaPad and save a little over the Framework and the Neo at that point... they aren't the only two options on the market.
> If you're not willing to pay a 20% premium for upgradability/fixability, then you don't _really_ want it. And that's fine!
This is a completely sensible take, but many on this forum believe upgradability/fixability should be mandated by law in spite of posts like this where consumers choose against this option in spite of what the repairability activists say. It's likely that the EU will in fact pass some laws to mandate this because of this vocal minority and because it's popular to stand up to Big Tech.
I'd guess the problem with the display is software, not hardware, and it just goes to show that the model of slapping parts together and using random downloadable software doesn't always turn out right.
It seems like they had two issues (both hardware) related to display quality: one is they couldn't have a custom display made to their specs, so they had to pick something off the shelf to meet requirements. Two is they used a 30 pin display connector (see https://community.frame.work/t/does-fl12-have-a-40-pin-edp-c...), so certain resolutions and refresh rates probably can't work.
Never understood the people who keep saying Macbooks are expensive. They make it sound like unreasonably expensive. Sure maybe before the Intel Macs in 2006. But for the last 20 years they've been not the cheapest but not the most expensive either.
And when you factor all the time you waste on Windows, especially at the time Windows Vista, which had insane memory requirements, and compared them to Mac Os (X at the time) which ran pretty good on the cheapest models, and factored in the fact that OS upgrades were free, it ended up being on par if not better proposition. (Assuming you're not trying to run some exclusively Windows software on it or gaming).
And with the MacBook Neo. Forget it about it. It's almost, just almost a foregone conclusion for an entry machine that it is a much better proposition.
Does Apple have a lot of overpriced products. Yes, yes they do. But they it also doesn't mean you had to buy it either.
They get pretty expensive when you bump the ram and storage... I mean, it's less noticeable in today's market, but it was pretty rough... IIRC my M1 Air cost close to $3k with the extra memory, storage and 3 years of apple care, vs something like $1300 base price iirc. Similar for prior Macbook Pros I've had.
If you can get by with a base model, they've been an okay deal.. and as mentioned a lot of the build features, display, touchpad, etc. are top of the line, best in class. But before the Neo, I'd still often pick a Lenovo Ideapad or similar for ~$500 or so first, and still might for more ram/storage.
Mac is really good and the ram performance is generally better than slotted ram, so that helps a lot. It doesn't help, however if you want to run a VM/Docker or things that allocate/isolate memory usage away from native apps.
I haven't even had a system with less than 16gb ram since before 2009... I've used as much as 70gb of memory with certain workloads on my desktop (though usually not nearly that much), but it's nice to have if/when you do need it without thrashing the storage drive.
Anyone who has held or used a 12" Macbook Retina knows this. Right about 2 LB, and very thin. They make amazing second or primary laptops depending on how mobile/flexible you want to be.
The piece the Framework 12 and Neo are missing is the weight and thickness, but they will be able to get there. If the Framework 12 had been thin and light, I would likely be holding one
From the screen prints of the display, I like the colors better on the framework. But I would agree that it could be due to some very minor issues with my eyes if more people like the Apple display colors better :)
To be honest, I am currently living with major Schadenfreude regarding ram costs.
For literally years, SV companies have had a "ship fast, fuck the users" mentality when it comes to resource usage, as if software is written more often than it's run.
Finally having some constrained supply of memory will force people to actually build software that can be reasonably used on 5 year old hardware (which would otherwise be perfectly servicable).
Slack from 2015 doesn't meaningfully add anything over Slack from 2025 yet I need 3x the RAM to run it.
Maybe... While less than perfect, I think even moving to shared browser runtimes like Tauri and similar are a boost over Electron. Not to mention shifting backend work to Rust over JS/TS. There's a lot of performance on the table to gain without even dramatically changing most of the application UI/UX.
This is, if crude, the correct take. You always choose your applications first, then the operating system best suited for them, then the hardware platform.
I was seduced by Apple Silicon after experiencing the exceptional battery life and performance. Those things are great, as are the screens and the speakers.
But I'm still excited about the Framework 12 because I don't love macOS. I don't need an alternative to beat Apple on every line of the spec sheet. I just need them to align with my values, support Linux well, and cross a certain "good enough" threshold. The latest laptops from Framework meet all of those requirements, and I'm excited to buy one after I've saved up enough money. I've missed Plasma for a long time. At the same time, I wouldn't even consider a MacBook Neo.
M-series MacBooks stink, literally. [1]
My newest MacBook reeks of strong adhesive from the vents.
Googling revealed hundreds of similar complaints, it's allegedly a solvent they use, perhaps flux. I thought it was the battery.
Unfortunately many claim "they all smell like that". Some (insane) people like the smell, I assume they sniffed glue as kids.
Unfortunately it's the last one I buy. I won't tolerate a smelly laptop.
[1] https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/unpleasant-solvent-like...
Yeah if your Macbook smells like that you need to be contacting Apple. That's obviously a manufacturing flaw. I've had multiple M series Mac pros from M1 up M5 and none of them have ever had an unpleasant smell.
Is that true with the mac book airs? My understanding is that they're completely sealed, and they use the case as a heat spreader.
Can you compare/contrast with the steam deck vent smell?
First I heard of this.
Apparently it's a meme and Zoomers are huffing their Steam Deck exhaust. Hmm.
From the descriptions I've read the smell is similar or identical.
Maybe they use the same magic ooze.
Is it feasible to run Linux on the Apple hardware? Seems like that could meet your requirements, except possibly "align with my values." I saw https://asahilinux.org/ but don't know how usable it is, or whether the long battery life and hardware support is preserved.
Every generation of Mac has its own requirements that Asahi has to support through a painstaking process of reverse-engineering, so it lags behind quite a bit. Realistically it will probably be 2030 before you can use it on any current-generation Mac.
The current leadership team at Asahi decided to prioritize upstreaming their existing work over reverse engineering on newer systems.
Given that you can score a used M1 Air for half the price of a new Macbook Neo (and have Linux be supported), it's an even better value compared to the Framework, for those who prefer Linux.
It's irritating to see it constantly recommended as a real option.
I think it's a feasible option I just can't use it for work because here's how that goes:
> "Hey can you remove MDM from this Macbook so I can install Linux?"
No.
> "Hey can I get a linux laptop for a hardware refresh?"
Sure.
Asahi on an M2 Macbook Pro supports almost everything https://asahilinux.org/fedora/#device-support
Almost everything, and that's already three generations behind.
I don't really need USB-C displays or Thunderbolt for my use case. The touch ID is easily replaced with a Yubikey.
Everything else just works. What is the problem?
I love the Asahi project and I'll probably keep my oldest M-series Mac around to continue to play with Asahi. But even for the oldest Macs it supports, the feature list is not quite complete. The way Apple does a lot of things is bespoke and involves a different division of labor between firmware and operating system than conventional UEFI systems. It's hard to support. I don't want to be required to wait years for features like full support for Thunderbolt docks, and I also want to give my money to a company that proactively supports Linux (e.g., sending hardware to kernel developers, FreeDesktop graphics driver developers, DE maintainers, and distro maintainers in advance of the release of new products) rather than always buying used or giving my money to a company that merely tolerates Linux support.
Again, I love the ambition of the Asahi project and what they've done. They're impressive hackers, and thousands of people will doubtless get years of happy Linux life out of their work— maybe including me! I have no complaints for them, and no wishlist I want to bring to them. In fact, I think maybe I should send them a donation or a kind email or both upon their next release.
But I want to give the bulk of my financial support to a computer vendor who offers me first-class, day-1 support for software environments that make me feel happy and respected. The Asahi team can't turn Apple into that by themselves.
I love Windows Arm. My latest machine, an Asus Zenbook A16 is great. 18 core Snapdragon X2 extreme, 48 GB of memory, and OLED screen--all for $1699. It feels very fast, faster than my 24-core Xeon desktop (though benchmarks would put my Xeon ahead) and has great "all-day" battery life.
You can remove the screws on the bottom and replace the battery (which is screwed in, too, no glue to peel) or the M.2 NVME which is enough "servicability" for me....
>I was seduced by Apple Silicon after experiencing the exceptional battery life and performance.
DHH showed the Framework laptops with latest Intel Panther Lake SoCs having similar battery life to AS Macs (~14 hours) under Omarchy linux while gaming benchmarks put their iGPUs in line or better than AMD's Ryzne SoCs at gaming.
The era of long battery life being the USP feature exclusive to Macbooks is slowly going away, especially if AMD pulls a similar move and heats up the competition.
Once the chip shortage from AI datacenters bubble pops, we could see even better SoCs from Intel, AMD, and even Qualcomm and Nvidia could join the ARM laptop battle in a serious way.
X86_amd64 + Linux let's goooo!
As nice as Apple's hardware is it's all undermined by who they are as a company, intentionally limiting their devices more and more while they relentlessly argue in courts and to regulators that we owe them more and more for using our devices.
Rosetta 2's retirement announcement was when I realized I won't buy another Mac, I'm not interested in a computer that is preoccupied with stopping me from running software. Work can buy them for me but I won't spend my money on a platform like that anymore.
Depending on how their Supreme Court argument goes in a few weeks I will stop buying an iPhone too, if they establish the precedent that any method of paying for Netflix deserves a $5/month fee then they will leverage that to extract the same fee everywhere else.
When is reasonable to stop supporting a platform that only hinders the user experience? Should they have supported PPC emulation forever? x86 is on the way out in for most consumer devices. Apple is usually a bit early to drop technologies, but still acknowledges and fixes real mistakes (USB-C-only laptops and the associated keyboards) when they impact customer experience.
> Should they have supported PPC emulation forever
Yes.
Supporting everything forever is how you end up with Windows
Here I was thinking the problem with Windows was the dog-slow RAM hogs the team replaced most of the core applications with so they could serve web ads in the launcher and OS chrome. Silly me, the real problem with Windows is that it can run old apps if you still have the exe kicking around.
The other day i saw a slick scifi movie and really liked the interface in one of the random background terminals. I thought id recreate a working version of it. I snapped a screenshot on my iphone where i was watching, but lo it was blacked out? Same after several attempts. Ugh fine, go to my macbook, fire up netflix in a browser there, screenshot from desktop. Nope. Still blacked out.
Its not just older architecture we are losing out on.
Is this just "Person discovers DRM, c. 2026" dressed up as a complaint about Apple?
Only if you are solely an Apple user, because it's literally not a problem anywhere else. I've taken tons of photos of movies with my Pixels.
Bought the Framework 12 as my personal daily driver (limited hobby projects, Obsidian, light browsing) and for the hardware to grow with my use cases.
So even if I could get more bang for my buck with a Neo (yeah, I could), the tinkerability and repairability win over raw specs for what I actually use it for. Did I pay more for a less polished, less powerful machine? Yep. Is it enjoyable to use and fully capable of meeting my requirements? Yep.
Came to bikeshed but the video was more nuanced and fair than this title.
> Came to bikeshed but the video was more nuanced and fair than this title.
Same here. It isn't hard to justify buying something like the Framework 12 in principle.
I have bought multiple Framework computers and I continue to be a fan, not because it is the best in any single category. It is because I want computers to be bought and sold in the vision that the Framework folks seem to have.
When I purchase a Framework I'm not purchasing a single computer. I'm buying a laptop-of-Theseus that I can continue to use throughout the future. When parts get broken, or a fancy new part is better, I buy the parts and upgrade it rather than buy a whole new device.
I also run an operating system that is publicly developed and available.
You won't see these things on a spec sheet or influencer demo.
You could get 4 Lenovo X280 if you just need an overpowered notepad.
Yeah, or a Macbook Neo! No need to disparage other people's use cases.
The point of the Framework is to run Linux, and not to be part of Apple's ecosystem. I don't want my computer to update itself without my permission, report telemetry to Apple, upload anything to any "cloud" or request that I log into something. If you don't think this is a big deal, wait until an age or identity verification law is passed somewhere, and Apple will enforce it against your will, on the computer that you bought and thought that you owned.
What Framework is trying to do feels like something that would've made more sense 10 years ago.
And the reason for that is b/c of Moore's Law approaching its end.
The way to manufacture more efficient compute now is do things like put DRAM closer to the chip and even closer integration between CPU and GPU. The fact that Apple can co-design their silicon such that the CPU and GPU can pull from the same pooled RAM is a major advantage over competitors. There are also latency and bandwidth benefits how they setup their RAM just from pure physics. And chip manufacturing is moving towards chiplets where you have cores manufactured separately and then wired together at nanoscale level on top of a silicon interposer.
The current best-practice unfortunately is closer to Apple's "hemetically sealed appliance" philosophy, and not the "I build my own PC" philosophy.
When you have CPU, GPU, and even DRAM sitting on the same "die" the only things you're going to be swapping out on your Framework laptop are going to be relatively trivial.
> CPU, GPU, and even DRAM sitting on the same "die"
This is actually great. The laptop body stays the same and you swap out a small mini circuit board that has the CPU + GPU + DRAM on it.
This is the point of the Framework laptops. They are just unfortunately stuck with non-Apple parts and thus are slow / inefficient.
Maybe Qualcomm can make a motherboard for Framework high end laptops with their Snapdragon X2 Elite Extreme ARM-based CPUs that are supposedly competitive with Apple's M4 offerings?
And then offer a cut down Qualcomm mobile phone CPU + GPU + DRAM offering for the Framework 12 so that it can compete on price/performance with the MacBook Neo?
I think you need to complete with Apple with the right equivalents.
Funny thing is, the circuit board on the Neo is barely smaller than that of the lowest end iPhone. The only remaining big cost item swappable item at that point is the display.
The benefits of modularity begin to get outweighed by the costs when 85% of the cost of the machine needs to be swapped out with each upgrade. For consumers, why would they not simply opt to spend the rest of the 15% to get a whole new computer?
> spend the rest of the 15% to get a whole new computer?
I can see why the manufacturer would want this. As a user though why would you? If the rest of the body is familiar and works well, why toss it?
Maybe the sentiment springs from the general culture of consumerism and new-is-better thinking, and historically that's been warranted in the consumer electronics space. Most things aren't really like that though. Humans have long built tools, clothing, furniture, and infrastructure designed to last a long time. You commit resources up front to make sure the thing is of high quality and then benefit for anywhere between decades to centuries. Replacement carries the risk of downgrading. Again, rapid technological advancement has blown this way of doing things away, but at some point parts of the tech plateau and this will need to be rediscovered. For things like keyboards, trackpads, and laptop cases, I don't see how "new" will beat "good" from this point on. Even displays are starting to reach limits. This seems like the right time to be working on "here is your reliable human interface device, drop in whatever crazy magic chip fabs have cooked up every X years to keep it capable."
From a humanist perspective there's another reason to move this way. People like to grow attached to objects and tools. Something has been lost in the shuffle of swapping out our most personal objects every few years.
Yeah, I think this is the right idea (or the most optimistic path towards M-series power/performance). If you wanted something fully/aggressively open you could do something like build a mainboard compatible with one of MNT's fully open SOMs like [1].
[1] https://shop.mntre.com/products/mnt-reform-rcore-rk3588-proc...
> The fact that Apple can co-design their silicon such that the CPU and GPU can pull from the same pooled RAM is a major advantage over competitors.
Lots of laptops have integrated graphics. And many recent CPUs have strong integrated graphics. They're not doing anything special there. I don't understand why that gets so much attention.
The special thing they do is having very wide bandwidth on the higher end models, to a CPU with integrated graphics. That doesn't affect the Neo though.
> There are also latency and bandwidth benefits how they setup their RAM just from pure physics
What sort of physics? Dedicated GPUs achieve massive memory bandwidth without needing to put all of their memory on-die.
Shorter PCB traces because of insane timing requirements for DDR5, GDDR7, and beyond; GPUs put the memory chips as close as possible surrounding the CPU die to reduce the latency and prevent timing/signaling issues.
But even there, the fastest AI accelerator GPUs are putting memory on die, and using chiplet designs, to get the memory closer and closer to the cores.
SSD is also soldered for little performance advantage.
> Moore's Law approaching its end.
No it isn't. We are going more parallel and the transistor counts will continue to rise.
> that the CPU and GPU can pull from the same pooled RAM is a major advantage over competitors
It can be an advantage, it also has downsides though. LPDDR5 is fairly slow as far as GPU memory goes, and on Apple Silicon it splits the bandwidth across the entire chipset. Many recent Macbooks have dGPU-tier hardware constrained by Wintel-laptop memory bandwidth.
And if Apple uses DDR5, why not CAMM? If Apple uses NVMe, why not M.2? Many of the advantages you've listed are marginal compared to the real-world constraints of the hardware, and cover up some boneheaded decisions that don't significantly impact the laptop's efficiency.
Right now, at this point in time, for applications like local AI and certain types of gaming, I would argue for most people having more VRAM is more useful than having faster VRAM. I personally now do more AI stuff and gaming on my M5 mac with its 24 GB shared (300 GB/s) RAM pool than my 12 GB 5070 Ti (900 GB/s).
Apple still lives in its walled garden and defends it vociferously, but I would argue they have made the correct design tradeoffs for their business.
For applications like local AI and the majority of PC video games, you are not expected to have DDR5-level GPU bandwidth. It is a constraint, there is no "good enough" when you're selling a desktop-grade M5 Max that is bandwidth-constrained in practice. Modern gaming at native resolution is pretty much impossible on most Macbook Pros.
It's an acceptable approach for iPad-level stuff, but for professional workstations and desktops it's not competitive.
I don't like the comparison's fundamental assumption that they're addressing the same market.
If these are both addressing the same market then yes of course the Neo wins.
But I think actually one of these is for linux nerds and one is for the masses who barely understand what OS is running on it.
There is a segment of Framework's customer base which is ride-or-die for Linux, but it's not their entire customer base: they still exist in a market where they need to compete on features and cost. Before the Neo, that wasn't too bad because they were more-or-less at parity with Apple on cost, close enough on polish, and better on repairability. But the Neo is just so cheap, and with Apple's level of polish it's really tough to compete with.
The Neo costs the same as an on-sale Macbook Air, but doesn't support Asahi Linux. If any Framework customers were tempted by Apple hardware, they would have bought the Air a year ago and probably look at the Neo like it's a Fischer-Price laptop. Cost and polish aren't going to push sales for this market segment.
I love that Framework exists and I hope they succeed.
I have been recommending them to friends and family who are looking for Windows or Linux laptops, though with some reservations due to the problems with a couple of their models.
However I don't see the value in the Framework 12 over a MacBook Neo if someone isn't choosing by OS first. The $499 MacBook Neo is just so good for the price and so well built. The $499 price is the education price, which is relevant for the student in the story.
The upgradeability is a benefit of the Framework 12, but look at the premium you pay for that option: $799 versus $499 is a 60% premium paid up front. You could sell the MacBook Neo for $200 in a couple years and buy a next-generation MacBook Neo for probably a very similar financial to buying the Framework 12 and not upgrading it.
> if someone isn't choosing by OS first.
What a surprising idea! I have always and only ever chosen by OS first. Are there really a significant number of people willing to buy a computer with no concern for the type of software it will be able to run?
> Are there really a significant number of people willing to buy a computer with no concern for the type of software it will be able to run?
Most common software that typical buyers use is available on Mac or Windows: Web browsers, office software, maybe an e-mail client.
This is why Chromebooks are a viable option, too.
Even my software development workflows are mostly cross-platform when I think about it. I can run all of my IDEs and text editors on my Mac, Windows, and Linux computers.
> Most common software that typical buyers use is available on Mac or Windows
That's not how most people think. Most non-techies are either fluent with "how to use a Mac" or "how to use Windows" and they will just stick with that inertia.
For a lot of people, learning a new OS is an ordeal.
Also possible that people have paid for licenses / apps and thus want to stay with the OS those will run on, instead of having to pay again (if it's even an option).
Besides, the Linux app is available for Windows - no need to run it bare-metal: https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows/wsl/install
What type of software will you not be able to run? Your browser will work just the same, and your dev env and devtools will be just the same, and it's a posix environment. If that's what I need most and it runs just about the same on macos/linux then why not prioritize the hardware?
Outside of tech professionals, yes.
It’s 2026 and what people don’t do in an app, they mostly do in a browser. An entire generation of “digital native” people are now adults who don’t even understand what a file system is, don’t understand folder structures, and don’t care what OS they run.
That said, having a computer that seamlessly integrates with their mobile device is a huge feature. So the MacBook neo not only being so affordable but fitting into the Apple ecosystem is a slam dunk for normal people
Most regular users do everything via the web, where there is little difference between the OSes. Gaming is the only thing that comes to mind where regular users notice a dramatic difference.
This. People really underestimate or straight up ignore resale value of Apple products. Just because you can upgrade a Framework laptop it doesn't make it a better value over the long term.
Can't believe the cost of the trash can mac pros. I always wanted one and put it on my long term to-do list, but they're still $500+. Even if they can be had for less, I won't buy one because my tolerance for tinkering has since dwindled. But it's quite a testament that they are still that expensive.
I mean, you have always wanted one. Can you say the same thing about any other PC?
You understand the demand for them. It’s you.
Correct, the demand is effectively zero because the people that want them absolutely won't buy them.
Isnt the reason to by a Framework (or similar) because you would not want to be part of Apple's ecosystem? Why would benchmarks even matter here?
Framework needs an audience bigger than that because mostly people don't think in terms of ecosystem, they think in terms of 'does it do what I want for a cost I want to pay' and Apple wins on this.
This is why no one buys Windows laptops I guess.
Windows is the most popular OS for laptops in the US precisely because it does what people want for a price they want to pay.
That statement doesn't stand on its own. For example, the most popular OS for laptops at my place of work is Windows. It has very little to do with what people want or price. It has almost everything to do with ecosystem lock in.
A significant portion of windows laptop market share comes from corporate purchases.
Is this totally true? There is advertising, marketing spend and retail shelf space. Surely it's more complex than "solves users problem at price point."
This is a brutal (but polite -- classic US Midwestern Geerling 'kill them with kindness'!) side-by-side comparison. My heart goes out to the Framework Computer team. Any team trying to compete in this product space against the surprise from Mac Neo must feel crushed. That said, I am still very optimistic for Framework Computer. It seems like nerds are going wild for them.
I didn't watch the video but isn't the main selling point of the Framework line (from their website) "Designed for easy customization, upgrades, and repairs."
I would imagine the Mac Neo is a sealed unit that you use as-is until it's e-waste.
It's actually not bad. The rhetoric has had an effect over the years.
https://www.ifixit.com/News/116152/macbook-neo-is-the-most-r...
It's actually not bad? "The most repairable MacBook in years" means practically nothing. And for someone who might be comparing with a Framework, it's probably an insult.
You're preaching to the choir, brother. But reread the comment I replied to. "Use as-is until e-waste" the Neo is not.
EU regulations have had an effect.
You will be able to drop an old Neo off at an Apple store and they'll recycle it. Same as with most of their other products.
You won't be able to upgrade it, but it is at least moderately repairable.
Framework is and will always be a statement device. Like modern 4x4 suvs that only haul groceries and may never see dirt roads, the upgradability of a laptop is something few will ever exercise. Most people are buying the idea.
Maybe. My wife is non tech and after dropping her XPS and breaking the screen she was real interested in something that can have a replacement display installed in about half an hour. She wishes her F13 were a little slimmer like her XPS, but she gets a lot of peace of mind knowing that repairs something that "even" she could do.
I'd also say that Linux support basically from day 1 is their hidden killer feature. Literally zero fuss. That's mattering to a lot more people these days even if they don't daily drive Linux, it's a good plan B in case Windows manages to get even worse.
Most people who want a user-replaceable screen just buy a Thinkpad. I've replaced the screen on all two of the thinkpads i've owned over the last 16 years. I still have my X series from 2010; it still works, only an ant crawled between two layers of the screen and died near the center and after 7 years it was time for an upgrade. It also ran (still runs) linux just fine due to that one guy at RedHat (who very recently retired) who maintained so many of the drivers for the world. I never needed anything more complicated than a philips head screwdriver to replace the screen, ram, keyboard, hard disk, or battery. And you can get parts for a thinkpad in most countries you're likely to visit.
Hans :) https://www.phoronix.com/news/Hans-de-Goede-Leaving-Red-Hat
It may be less valuable now because of RAM/SSD prices, but I was able to benefit from my framework's modularity on Day 1 by saving hundreds of dollars by buying those components a la carte Instead of paying the heavily marked up prices some vendors charge for upgrades.
my partner is a non-tech woodworker and fucking brutal on hardware, so she was addicted to Chromebooks. they cost nearly nothing, they came in weird small form factors, and they had a knack for lasting forever.
she had a day job that required her to use an older Mac and it was a relative pain in her ass that put her off Macs at home. I had a pile of retired laptops and kept trying to find one that would sway her off google.
she expressed interest in drawing functions so I started with a Lenovo Yoga. Windows wasn't an issue as soon as she figured out that she could sign into Chrome and just stay in it like a chromebook. but it was too big, too heavy, too glossy, and crashed too often. she also ended up cracking the screen in 2 months, and while the display was replaceable, the stylus digitizer part never worked again, which eliminated the one compelling feature.
next one we tried was an M1 MBA, which had all the things she hated about her work laptop. she also destroyed one of its USBC ports after 3 days, despite getting a protective cover for it, and it never consistently charged again after that. got donated in the end.
during this time I decided to upgrade my FW13 mainboard and instead picked up another full DIY kit to get the updated hinge, screen, and bottom chassis. The old Ryzen mainboard got the SSD and 2 x 8GB RAM pulled from the Yoga, and I offered it to her as an interim until she found something she liked.
she was mixed on it, but it stood up to her. what sold her on it was that when she dropped it on a concrete floor and bent the bottom chassis near the expansion ports, I just bought her a new bottom chassis and linked her to the replacement video. She had it swapped out in an hour and a half, her first solo computer repair.
so now her top two laptops of all time are:
- that shitty 10" Acer chromebook, still, because it was 10" and matte and about $60
- the FW13, which she's since added about 2 pounds of stickers to and also upgraded the hinge and battery on herself
most people are buying the idea, yeah. we have to, in order to show other people what the idea means in practice
You're probably right for most people. But in laptops I've owned, I've done stuff like upgrade storage, upgrade/add RAM, swap out the WiFi module for one that has better OS driver support, replace batteries.
I keep my laptops a very long time.
Every single one of them has seen repairs like screen replacement and hinge improvement. Every single one has had upgrades to storage, RAM, and CPU -- and at least one battery replacement. Ye olde Thinkpad is presently one hairy-looking BIOS flash away from a wifi upgrade.
I usually buy these machines inexpensively on the used market. And I'd love to buy an inexpensive Framework. Except... The supply/demand ratio seems to be in favor of the seller, as they seem to hold their value surprisingly well compared to many other machines.
Anyway, I don't want one for style points. I want one so I can keep it even longer than the Thinkpads and Dells of yore.
How would one know though by just looking at the device? I have chassis that came with Intel 11th gen, but the brainboxery, keyboard, battery, touchpad -- all have been swapped over time.
If you're ideologically willing to use a Mac, you're really not the market that the Framework is targeting. Apple has always had some of the best hardware. Where they really struggle is in respecting user choice and allowing power users to alter their systems. The Neo is an appliance. The Framework is a tool. They're fundamentally intended for different people.
If your choice of platform is driven by hardware instead of software, and you really like tablet mode, check out a Surface Pro. They're decent tablets that run full Windows/Linux instead of some neutered tablet OS, with a keyboard you can attach to use like a laptop.
I think Framework would disagree that their target market consists solely of people ideologically opposed to owning Apple hardware.
They might disagree with that framing, but it does seem to be the majority of folks I see who are interested in them.
And I'm not saying that as a negative - my Framework 13 is my favorite laptop by a fairly wide margin, but it's clearly not at the hardware level of my work issued mac.
Apple produces fantastic hardware. It's a shame I can't stand them as a company, and that they cripple that hardware with their OS.
Prior to framework, I'd be buying something along the lines of a Dell XPS (developer edition for linux compatibility) because a mac is just a non-starter for me. But a mac hands-down the best hardware you can get for a personal laptop right now. Turns out that's not the main driver of what laptop I want.
> But a mac hands-down the best hardware you can get for a personal laptop right now
That's pretty much almost always been the case with Mac laptops though. Last Intel gen(s) aside for heat at the top end.
I find that Apple's overall build quality, display and touchpads have pretty much always been second to none... I like the keyboards on most Thinkpads, especially historically, more than Apple's though. That said, being able to run Linux proper has become a higher priority... I plan to continue using my M1 air until it dies or I can't stand it anymore... but I bought it with 16gb ram and a bigger drive, so it does what I need and then some.
I don't "work" on it, so that isn't a big deal and I can remote edit in VS Code to my desktop via wireguard+ssh wherever I am with internet access. That could be a differentiator, but my vision is so bad, I probably won't be able to get away with the maxed out display on any laptop eventually.
> That's pretty much almost always been the case with Mac laptops though
I think that's a Rosy take. I remember the macs from before the intel generation, and they were hardware garbage (there's a reason they finally gave up and went to intel)
Then the intel macs were nice looking exteriors with very lackluster internals.
So for a long time it genuinely was an overpriced laptop from a performance point of view.
I'd say it really wasn't until the M1 that Apple has been at the top on both sides of the hardware equation.
But they are there now. I'm waiting to see if we get some real competition opening up in that space (hopefully).
I guess it's hard for me to judge, I never really used Macs during the PowerPC era... I used the prior generation when I was at school sometimes, but not much. Mostly a PC user most of the time until well after the Intel transition.
But even if the performance wasn't great, they did have very good displays, and touchpads with good keyboards and better than most speakers. A lot of laptops didn't come close to that portion of the experience at least at the base pricing, which IMO matters. That physical level of interface is what has had me use Apple more than most other factors.
I'd say there's definitely a lot of competition from Apple... I'd even say the Neo is a surprisingly good option for a lot of people... too many compromises, imo, for anyone doing technical work though. But even a base model M1 Air is also pretty good value.
> The Neo is an appliance. The Framework is a tool.
I get where you're coming from in principle, but I'm not sure to what audience this actually applies. If you just want a laptop that can run the software you use, both are adequate as tools. The Framework's greater flexibility only applies to making changes to the tool itself, which doesn't matter if you didn't need to change it to suit your purposes. (And I say that as someone who has built their own Linux & Windows PCs from parts since high school, because I know I'm not the target audience for a Neo)
It's like I consider my Dewalt power drill a very decent tool because it has exactly the modularity I need -- it even has interchangeable batteries -- and it wouldn't even occur to me to call it an outright appliance even if another power drill offered more customization for some niche use case. The Neo is an adequate tool for many people even if other tools do offer more customization or maintainability.
This would be a much stronger argument against using an iPad for productivity, because many people simply cannot run the software they need, or only at a significant expense to productivity and quality of life. I use iOS devices only as communication and media terminals, and even then I would struggle to call them appliances, they're still tools for their particular tasks.
True, I was being a bit loose with my terminology. Some tools reward customization more than others. Machine tools and 3d printers are often used to produce parts, mods, and upgrades for themselves, for example. Screwdrivers aren't usually used to work on themselves though.
The principle I was trying to express is that a Framework (and Linux, for that matter) is a tool more like a mill or an older 3d printer from the RepRap era. You will get the most out of it if you spend time customizing it, altering it, upgrading it, understanding it, etc. A MacBook Neo is a tool more like a screwdriver or a power drill. It is immediately fit for its purpose, even if that purpose isn't quite as wide ranging.
It feels a bit odd to compare them directly across categories. The MacBook Neo feels like it should be compared to a Chromebook or a cheap Windows laptop, not a high-end Linux-first upgradable machine. That's like comparing a Dewalt power drill to a 1930s drill press. They can both drill a hole... but they're just not the same tool, and I (personally) wouldn't expect to use them in the same way.
Framework's hero image when you build the laptop is someone removing the keyboard to tinker with the machine.[1] If you don't intend to do that, then yeah, it's probably not the choice for you. If you are indifferent between macOS and Linux, then it's probably not the choice for you.
1: https://static.frame.work/8pbsbvkvt7p9nayyn32gzyg84spa
One thing I miss from when I mained workstation-class Linux laptops is indeed just how tinkerable they were, in a way that didn't feel like a compromise because no other workstation-class laptop was smaller, and smaller laptops had limited performance. You could upgrade RAM and replace a HDD with an SSD, you could drop in a PCMCIA card, you could bring interchangeable batteries, etc.
I appreciate that Framework has not only brought that back but expanded on it further, but they've done it at a very different time in the market. Now that maintainability and customizability does come at a compromise to at least one of cost, bulk, or performance. That's not only the case when compared to the Neo, as far as I know it's also the case at the high end compared to a MacBook Pro.
They've set out to do something that would be difficult in any case, but they're also doing it against Apple's advantages of vertical integration and economy of scale. I'm sure I'm not the only person that can deeply respect that while still not feeling any interest in buying any of their available products.
Well, if Apple killed it, Lenovo killed it even more. I recently was looking for a laptop for a student. The Lenovo E14 Gen7 is 800 Euros here in Germany (where prices are always higher, the MacBook Neo is 700 Euros), it has 16GB of RAM, 1TB SSD, a 2.8k IPS display, a Intel Ultra5 12core CPU, and it has a repairability score of 9/10 from ifixit. Framework doesn't even come close to that package.
Framework is definitely premium-priced, but I don't think most people are cross-shopping the Framework 12 (a 12" convertible tablet) and the Thinkpad E14 (a 14" dedicated laptop).
so it's competing with Framework 14?
No such model exists. The Framework 13 comes closest, but a 13" screen and a premium shell would compete more directly with the Thinkpad X13.
Direct price comparisons get tricky because different buyers care about different details. I really like the Thinkpad's Trackpoint, for example, but I also like the Framework's 3:2 aspect ratio. I'd have a hard time choosing.
Ymmv but the 16:10 screen on the framework punches a bit above its weight compared to 16:9 screens with a similar diagonal measurement
The Framework 13 has an aspect ratio of 3:2, not 16:10. The Thinkpad X13 has an aspect ratio of 16:10.
Same thought, as an owner of a similar Lenovo, that's top bang for the buck. Also, matte screen and hinge that opens 180 degrees is something the Neo and most Macs doesn't have.
Though I assume the Apple clientele is always different than those shopping for PCs, and doesn't care about specs, they just want MacOS and the Apple ecosystem, most likely they already have an iPhone or are planning to get one anyway so then a Macbook is the only thing on their radar. Those people aren't really shopping for PCs anyway unless they need some Windows/Linux exclusive apps like CAD/CAE.
But if you want to run linux and game then that Lenovo would be a good deal.
Similar to the Framework, it has its own niche clientele who values the company motto, tinkering and repairability aspects way more than the value proposition. Most likely they run Linux too.
There's something for everyone.
It is funny how Mac OS is a draw for some, when it is the main reason I don't use a Mac. Their hardware is excellent, but when I've tried using a Mac as my main machine, my productivity suffered. The only part of the Apple ecosystem I wish I could get on Windows is iMessage, and maybe FaceTime.
> The only part of the Apple ecosystem I wish I could get on Windows is iMessage, and maybe FaceTime.
It annoys me that these are such a draw. There are a dozen other viable messaging and video call apps, but there's always someone who feels like spending two minutes to install and activate one is a major imposition.
16GB of RAM? Good for browsing the internet and nothing else.
Uncles don’t let relatives buy less than 16gb ram. That has been my standard since ~2010 and our 2013 mbp is still running fine because I insisted on it.
I prefer FW for freedom reasons, that’s worth a few hundred as well as the ram. Would also wait for the new intel chipset that is more efficient however.
Finally I think the FW 12 is weirdly positioned, as the 13 is already thin and light. For a tablet, I recommend the Star Labs Starlite instead. Both in same package? Clunky.
Guess I’d recommend a used FW 13 and Starlite instead. That’s what I have now and no real reason to upgrade, and freedom to tinker is off the charts, perfect for a student.
> Uncles don’t let relatives buy less than 16gb ram. That has been my standard since ~2010 and our 2013 mbp is still running fine because I insisted on it.
Just last weekend I bought 8gb ram thinkpad t14 for an elderly relative. 240 EUR.
It replaces his thinkpad x220 where the fan and ssd slowly dies.
I doubt it becomes an issue, and if it does then I can upgrade it later.
You can do it once and spend an extra hundred dollars or do it twice, including occasional restrictions to the user. Poor tradeoff imho.
This is a young person with a long life ahead, we shouldn’t buy disposable ewaste with a short life.
> we shouldn’t buy disposable ewaste with a short life.
Indeed. That makes two of us.
MacBooks don't need as much ram - I have an m1 air with 8gb of ram and it's perfectly serviceable, I can even run IntelliJ on it...
I never run out of memory on macoOS on my M1 Air 16GB. Now that I use Asahi on it, I had plenty of OoM crashes.
macOS is really good at memory management, including the compression and offloading to the fast SSD.
You have a buggy program. Zswap has been available for quite a while.
I'm yet to see a linux distro with memory configured correctly out of the box. (I haven't looked too hard, but the defaults are abysmal.)
Compared to what? Not really true, and hard on the swap drive. Penny-wise meet pound.
Well it's still kicking just fine years later, shrug
I have a Framework 12 and I absolutely love it. It's cute and super portable, and the 12-inch form factor is just perfect.
Sure, the hardware might not be the newest, but it's more than enough for me since I mostly do remote development. Plus, it has 48 GB of RAM, which lets me load the entire system into memory, making it feel super responsive.
But what I love most is how durable it is, which matters a lot because I'm honestly pretty careless with my stuff. Just yesterday, I grabbed my backpack off the table without realizing it was open. My Framework went flying across the entire room and slammed into the wall, and there wasn't even a single scratch on it. An aluminum laptop would've had a nasty dent at the very least.
And even if the whole frame had shattered, I could just order a new one for 55 dollars. Same story with the keyboard. One of the keys was making this annoying clicking sound, so I just detached it, stuck a little piece of tape underneath, and it was good as new. I only felt comfortable doing that because I knew that worst case, I could get a whole new keyboard for 55 dollars.
Honestly, not having to handle my laptop carefully is worth so much to me. I also don't stress about battery care, whatever to preserve long-term battery life, because replacing the battery costs, you guessed it, 55 dollars.
The repair ability is why I went with a Framework. My last two laptops had keyboards that lasted until a few months after the warranty. Rest of the laptop works, but I can't find replacement keyboards at a reasonable price. So a framework, and I bought a spare keyboard upfront on the off chance they go bankrupt.
I wish Framework had released a gamepad or a printer instead of a keyboard. I get that they need to expand their ecosystem and revenue stream, but keyboard just wasn't it for me. There are so many good reliable cheap keyboards already, though I guess none with the touchpad, but again just not for me.
The gamepad I think would have been the killer device. Look at how much attention the steam gamepad gets. Sure, I have two gamepads already and I use them to play games on a dedicated (framework) computer hooked up to the living room TV. But guess what doesn't work? Turning the computer/TV on with the gamepad. It's so small, but so frustrating, also anytime the screens go off or sleep. So I have to keep a little $10 wireless keyboard there to turn the TV on / wake the computer.
My understanding is this is what holds it (and all other gamepads) back: https://github.com/FrameworkComputer/SoftwareFirmwareIssueTr...
Steam is going to get there by having both the gamepad + the computer which then makes it possible to workout the various TV implementations.
> or a printer
Someone else is doing that: https://www.crowdsupply.com/open-tools/open-printer
It is such a shame, too, because what Framework has achieved at this pricepoint should be commended. The fact that their business can sustain a lower-margin SKU like the Framework 12 is nothing short of extraordinary! But wow, the MacBook Neo threw a bomb into the low-end market.
> the Mac is faster (in most cases), more efficient, quieter, built better, has a much nicer display, and costs much less.
The Framework is more expensive, slower (in most cases), louder (its fan ramps up quite often), has a pretty poor display, but it is a touchscreen, has a 360° hinge, and is more repairable and upgradeable.
https://www.jeffgeerling.com/blog/2026/its-hard-to-justify-f...
The thing I was not expecting was that the Intel i3 was not that far ahead on sustained loads, even with the fan at 100%.
> there's one performance-related area where the Framework pulls ahead—a little
> has a pretty poor display
Framework 13 has a very good display while 12 has a crappy display.
If I was buying a new laptop the Framework 12 seems like a really nice portable form factor but the crappy screen of the 12 would hold me back.
I have a 12 and the screen is fine. It's no OLED but I have no complaints for what it is. I love it as a secondary tablet-laptop for drawing and reading comics (primary laptop is a Framework 16 which I'm also in love with for Unity3D game dev and similar tasks, that one needs Windows for Visual Studio but I'm enjoying Gentoo on the 12)
The framework 12 is the ideal couch device for a developer, in ultra power saving mode it’s good enough for most websites, and it having a quickly getting hot 13th gen intel cpu means you also got a dev machine on the low end spectrum, not a vm, but an actual piece of hardware a typical user might have and not some 32 thread 64 gb monster
it remains my pet peeve that the 12 and 13 didn't find a clever way to share a mainboard by ditching the expansion cards on one side and just exposing the USBC ports. I would've sacrificed a lot to be able to just move my mainboard intact to another chassis if I needed the features. (which is exactly what I'll be doing with the 13 Pro, and IMO should've been a top goal of the 12)
A truck will always be a worse car than a car, the question is do you need a car or a truck? If you need a car, get a Neo, if you need a truck, get a Framework. They’re not competing past that initial question.
Oh man I couldn't imagine comparing Framework / 12 to Apple / Neo: apples and oranges
I would never bother with Apple's locked down proprietary software / hardware "ecosystem"
For me it's hard justifying buying an Apple Neo ever basically as a contrary article
The title should read 'it's hard to justify buying any other laptop than the Neo in the sub $1000 space'. It's an absolute unit of a computer; the only more revolutionary box would be the M1 Air (or the original Air. maybe. my vote is on the M1.)
The original Air was not good.
I think you mean the second gen Air (SSD-only, c2010), which was an incredible combination of price, performance, and usability.
I understand Jeff's argument, but he is missing the fact that one of the features of the Framework 12 is the modularity of the components. So if that is not a valued feature in this scenario, sure it's hard to justify.
> he is missing the fact that one of the features of the Framework 12 is the modularity of the components
He does explicitly make that point.
> The biggest win is the modular ports.
I love building and upgrading stuff as well as paying (much) more for tools that will last. But this is a laptop not a socket set, paying (a lot) more for worse performance up front makes absolutely no sense. Seems like the argument should be the Framework 12 just shouldn’t exist.
I think what makes the perspective in the article interesting is that buying individual components a la carte isn't a good value in today's market. Sure you can upgrade the RAM and SSD in the Framework, but 16 GB of laptop DDR5 is $200 and a 1 TB 2230 SSD is another $200. The question becomes, is it worth it to spend 40% more for a laptop with 40% less performance (as well as worse build quality, a worse screen, worse speakers, worse battery life, and running hotter) so you can have the potential to spend half the price of the laptop to upgrade it in the future?
but I can't run Arch on the neo. literally unplayable
I have a fw13, best Linux laptop I've ever had, & I've bought System76 in the past
Framework was never the best hardware given a fixed budget, but it is true that Apple prices have become more competitive in the latest releases.
Still, few do the math of upgrading just the motherboard after a couple of years, vs buying a new laptop.
Framework laptops have been retrocompatible for the last 6 years.
Both of them seems suicidal, 8GB RAM is really annoying to deal with.
You can put 48GB in a Framework 12 which makes it slightly more usable.
And you can do that whenever you choose to do so, not simply at time-of-purchase.
Something worth considering with the present RAM-market madness.
I really want a Framework 12, but not in current incarnation. Hoping for an upgrade with aluminum body. I don't mind the pricepoint. But didn't want a plastic notebook at this point. Want a great couch computer for surfing the net, ssh'ing to machines, writing, etc....
What I surprisingly really miss, is my macbook air 11".
But probably won't be surprised if I end up with a Framework 13 Pro once they're caught up on delivery. I'm really hoping they have an announced 12 revision by then, though.
And Panther Lake or competitive AMD.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panther_Lake_(microprocessor)
I had a MacBook Air 11" back in the day. 2nd or 3rd generation, I can't remember. The one that didn't stutter on YouTube. Amazing machine! I had always wished the screen was slightly bigger though. The insanely large bezel was a waste of space.
What's the real cause of them being unable to price competitively?
Is it DRAM, NAND flash storage, SoC cost, simply scale?
All of these, and more. Macbook Neos benefit from all the hardware that Apple makes in-house, reusing CPUs that they already make for iPhones but didn't make the cut, have zero upgradeability, benefit from massive economies of scale, contracts are already signed in advance, the delivery and logistics of an existing chain...
Framework has to go talk to Intel and AMD, get parts shipped, assembled onto a motherboard that they have to make themselves and ordered in very low amounts then shipped all to their fulfillment center, then fedexed, have to source components... Even not taking into account the fact that Apple already has all of the hardware made or available in-house, just the supply and logistics chain is an easy 10% of the final price.
Efficiencies of scale and experience, on multiple levels.
Component sourcing is the most obvious thing - Apple is known to buy up inventory years in advance for example and at insane quantities. TSMC's last new node? Apple paid billions to be the initial and, most importantly, exclusive customer. With hundreds of billions of dollars in cash and liquid assets, Apple can afford to sit on "dead money" for years - a small shop like Framework can't.
As for the Neo specifically, this thing shouldn't even exist, but Apple found themselves sitting on a stash of half defective iPhone SoCs. But instead of trashing them, they effectively recreated the netbook market segment...
The MacBook Neo is just the response to the question of "what do we do with all these binned iPhone chips without making yet another even lower cost iPhone?"
It's literally recycling Apple's garbage.
> It's literally recycling Apple's garbage.
…and still blows the doors off anything in its market.
I'm sorry but sometimes performance is not everything. Apple silicon - great except you are now in the Apple walled garden with all the consequences of it. Not to mention perpetually subpar developer experience without the rich Linux/Docker ecosystem. Yes, I know it is getting better but for developers there are still many warts. We just retired the last OSX laptops from my dev team because they were unproductive trying to work around some Docker limitations on OSX/Apple silicon.
You can replace Framework with Dell, HP, Lenovo in the title. Why pick on Framework?
More views.
> The GPU fares poorly on Intel's side
'Twas ever thus. I really wish we had a better baseline default without having to reach for NVidia/AMD.
Intel's iGPU has gotten better over the years, but an external is always going to have vastly more capability than an internal one.
That being said, for retro gaming or even playing games from the mid 2010's, the iGPU in a modern intel chip should do well enough.
Eh, I think the framing isn't quite right here. The Neo is a wonderful machine but if you want to upgrade it you're out of luck, the damn thing is sealed shut. By comparison the Framework lets you upgrade individual components over time to keep your system up to date without buying a whole new one.
Maybe that doesn't matter for the godson. But it's an important differentiator: the Framework is a (semi) premium product with premium features. If you don't intend to use those features, paying the premium rarely makes sense.
I think this model works for the 13 and 16, because you're already buying a good laptop that you can keep longer by upgrading. The 12's base specs and more than that the experience is pretty bad. The screen and speakers are terrible.
The 13 also targets people buying it for themselves and who value ownership. The 12 targets the education market and how many 14 year olds are sensitive to ownership, repairability and e-waste? If they are they would probably get something better second hand. You'd have to have a parent that is sensitive to this issue and is also willing to force down this bad laptop onto their children instead of whatever they prefer.
I love Framework, and the bet to try to win over the education market was worth making but the execution is so poor that I don't think it works out.
The MacBook Neo will happily last you the 4 years of highschool and maybe your bachelor.
The 12 for me has a very strong appeal as a smartphone / tablet replacement.
I've had smartphones and/or tablets for approaching 20 years now, and they've always struck me as very frustrating compromises. Mostly Android, but some use of iOS as well, and yes, the OS (in both cases) is fundamental to the limitations.
I've also used MacOS heavily (I'm on it now), and I don't like it, relative to Linux.
The Framework Laptop 12 is smaller than my most recent tablet (a 13.3" e-ink), though somewhat more massive. It frees myself from a plethora of Android limitations, crapware, inconsistencies, and the non-repairability of the hardware itself (presently an issue). It gives a real-computer experience, with some compromises for size, but I'm pretty sure that's a net win.
Paired with a limited-feature phone and possibly a few dedicated devices for specific uses (camera, audio recorder), I'm good.
And the 12 should provide an easy decade of service.
That might be true to some extent but what about the current product? It's nice to tell yourself that you can upgrade it in the future but the best of what the product is today isn't a great value, will the future upgrade make it better? Should we purchase a product today on what it might be tomorrow?
I think Jeff is correct when he says, "for an overall worse experience, are you willing to pay 20-40% more?". That's a tough sell. I think the only reason for me to take the Framework 12 over the Neo would be because I want to advocate for a world where upgradability and repairability are common things.
I don't think the idea is that the upgrade will take it from decent to stellar compared to other things you might be able to buy for the same money, it's about paying a bit extra now to be able to go from decent-in-2026 to decent-in-2031 while paying a fraction of the cost that you would buying a full replacement in 2031, not to mention saving a bunch of waste. And then in 2036, and 2041, and 2046... They haven't been around long enough to be confident it'll work out that way, but that's the bet in my mind.
> it's about paying a bit extra now to be able to go from decent-in-2026
Does "slower than an iPhone chip from a couple of years ago" meet that bar?
The CPU is specifically one of the upgradable components. Should a faster CPU be available in future there's the option to swap it in.
For lots of things, yeah. Don't try to fold proteins or open Facebook or whatever, but if you want to run a 3d printer or make some drawings or organize a bunch of notes and docs it would be way more than enough.
> The Neo is a wonderful machine but if you want to upgrade it you're out of luck, the damn thing is sealed shut. By comparison the Framework lets you upgrade individual components over time to keep your system up to date
The Framework 12 in the story costs $799, a $300 premium over the $499 MacBook Neo.
So you're paying an extra $300 up front for the option of spending more to upgrade it in the future, and getting a slower computer during that time.
That's a 60% premium to have the ability to upgrade a slower laptop.
Alternatively, they could sell the MacBook Neo for $200 in a couple years and buy a next-gen MacBook Neo and they'd still come out ahead.
Some people value upgradeability to an extreme, but I can't see a justification for spending a 60% premium to buy a worse product just to be able to maybe upgrade it in a few years. This is a starter laptop.
The neo isn't upgradeable, but it also isn't sealed shut. It's actually one of Apple's most repairable devices. If I were in the market for this class of device, I personally would still go with Framework for a variety of reasons, but I still think it's important to give apple praise for the pro-consumer choices they made (and probably could have gotten away without) in the Neo.
>and is more repairable and upgradeable
Oh no, that didn't matter to anyone[1], who would've thought!
Meanwhile AAPL goes brrr ...
It's sad because by the time other laptop manufacturers understand what people really want, Apple will have a 20 year lead on them. Hard to catch up with that.
1: Ok, 0.01% of consumers is not exactly "anyone" but close.
The problem with Apple laptop is few years into the future - it's what will happen when Apple drop support for this hardware in OS X. Even if Asahi Linux or similar will be in a good enough state, you will still have to go through pain of adjusting to new system, moving data, figuring out how to access your iCloud/time machine/etc...
Unfortunately for Framework, people who think this way make poor customers - can't justify buying Framework while my Lenovo X230 is working fine.
I tried using refurb'd Thinkpads as my travel machine for a long time - they're very brittle hard to fix laptops - kinda like Macbooks.
The Framework on the other hand is so easy to work on and get parts for - I know this isn't probably a main selling point for most users, but if you need this, Framework is like the only game in town.
If you're not willing to pay a 20% premium for upgradability/fixability, then you don't _really_ want it. And that's fine!
The Neo is an example of how this tradeoff should work: You lose flexibility but gain a lower price. For other Apple laptops, the price is on the high end and also you lose flexibility. This seeming contradiction is what helped open up the market opportunity for Framework.
(To complicate my argument a bit, it happens to be the case that the Neo is actually, for a Macbook, highly repairable, but the original article doesn't actually mention this so presumably they didn't think much about that. https://www.ifixit.com/News/116152/macbook-neo-is-the-most-r... )
(Also, I'm not putting down the overall value of pricier Macbooks. You get other things in return for those prices, they are still a good value and I own some Macbooks, I'm just looking at the price <-> repairability axis here... The Neo is a particularly clear example of price vs repairability)
> If you're not willing to pay a 20% premium for upgradability/fixability, then you don't _really_ want it. And that's fine!
$799 versus $499 is a 60% premium.
The best case numbers are buying used RAM and SSD for the Framework like Jeff did in the article ($749 total, if you can find the RAM at those prices) and comparing against the non-EDU MacBook Neo at $599. That's still a 25% premium.
Now pretend you can't get the student discount and actually want the extended warranty/applecare and compare the final result.
Now pretend you want to bump up to 16gb of ram so you can run a VM.
> Now pretend you can't get the student discount
Okay it's $599 vs $799 now. 33% premium.
> and actually want the extended warranty/applecare
The Framework warranty is only 1 year, same as the MacBook Neo.
If you add AppleCare+ to the MacBook Neo you could get a 3-year warranty laptop for $739 that performs better than the $799 Framework 12
> Now pretend you want to bump up to 16gb of ram so you can run a VM.
I don't think the students shopping for a MacBook Neo are going to be heavy VM users on their little laptop, but if I do this on their website the price bumps to $1049
$1049 is within $50 of a MacBook Air with 16GB of RAM and much better CPU, display, build quality, and battery life.
So I still don't see the value, sorry.
But bumping to 16gb ram means buying new hardware, moving over your profile/configuration and then trying to sell your old hardware, losing money on the trade... vs just upgrading the ram.
I'm not saying don't buy a Neo... I'm just saying there are objective reasons why you might not want to... for me, it's that I would prefer to run a Linux distro on whatever I buy. I might just go for a Lenovo IdeaPad and save a little over the Framework and the Neo at that point... they aren't the only two options on the market.
> If you're not willing to pay a 20% premium for upgradability/fixability, then you don't _really_ want it. And that's fine!
This is a completely sensible take, but many on this forum believe upgradability/fixability should be mandated by law in spite of posts like this where consumers choose against this option in spite of what the repairability activists say. It's likely that the EU will in fact pass some laws to mandate this because of this vocal minority and because it's popular to stand up to Big Tech.
Try upgrading your macbook neo..
I'd guess the problem with the display is software, not hardware, and it just goes to show that the model of slapping parts together and using random downloadable software doesn't always turn out right.
It seems like they had two issues (both hardware) related to display quality: one is they couldn't have a custom display made to their specs, so they had to pick something off the shelf to meet requirements. Two is they used a 30 pin display connector (see https://community.frame.work/t/does-fl12-have-a-40-pin-edp-c...), so certain resolutions and refresh rates probably can't work.
Never understood the people who keep saying Macbooks are expensive. They make it sound like unreasonably expensive. Sure maybe before the Intel Macs in 2006. But for the last 20 years they've been not the cheapest but not the most expensive either.
And when you factor all the time you waste on Windows, especially at the time Windows Vista, which had insane memory requirements, and compared them to Mac Os (X at the time) which ran pretty good on the cheapest models, and factored in the fact that OS upgrades were free, it ended up being on par if not better proposition. (Assuming you're not trying to run some exclusively Windows software on it or gaming).
And with the MacBook Neo. Forget it about it. It's almost, just almost a foregone conclusion for an entry machine that it is a much better proposition.
Does Apple have a lot of overpriced products. Yes, yes they do. But they it also doesn't mean you had to buy it either.
They get pretty expensive when you bump the ram and storage... I mean, it's less noticeable in today's market, but it was pretty rough... IIRC my M1 Air cost close to $3k with the extra memory, storage and 3 years of apple care, vs something like $1300 base price iirc. Similar for prior Macbook Pros I've had.
If you can get by with a base model, they've been an okay deal.. and as mentioned a lot of the build features, display, touchpad, etc. are top of the line, best in class. But before the Neo, I'd still often pick a Lenovo Ideapad or similar for ~$500 or so first, and still might for more ram/storage.
Mac is really good and the ram performance is generally better than slotted ram, so that helps a lot. It doesn't help, however if you want to run a VM/Docker or things that allocate/isolate memory usage away from native apps.
I haven't even had a system with less than 16gb ram since before 2009... I've used as much as 70gb of memory with certain workloads on my desktop (though usually not nearly that much), but it's nice to have if/when you do need it without thrashing the storage drive.
MacBooks are only expensive when you need performance upgrades, the base models are really not that bad for what you get.
But if you want to add a little more to your spec sheet, you might as well go somewhere else.
That's true. Even a slight memory or storage bump up is more than if you were to DIY. I guess convenience is where they get you.
The 12" footprint is really unique and useful.
Anyone who has held or used a 12" Macbook Retina knows this. Right about 2 LB, and very thin. They make amazing second or primary laptops depending on how mobile/flexible you want to be.
The piece the Framework 12 and Neo are missing is the weight and thickness, but they will be able to get there. If the Framework 12 had been thin and light, I would likely be holding one
From the screen prints of the display, I like the colors better on the framework. But I would agree that it could be due to some very minor issues with my eyes if more people like the Apple display colors better :)
Now upgrade both options to 16gb of ram so you can run Docker or a VM. Oops.
What's next, in 2027 will they release laptops with 4GB RAM? Are we going backwards?
To be honest, I am currently living with major Schadenfreude regarding ram costs.
For literally years, SV companies have had a "ship fast, fuck the users" mentality when it comes to resource usage, as if software is written more often than it's run.
Finally having some constrained supply of memory will force people to actually build software that can be reasonably used on 5 year old hardware (which would otherwise be perfectly servicable).
Slack from 2015 doesn't meaningfully add anything over Slack from 2025 yet I need 3x the RAM to run it.
Teams is worse somehow.
Let's hope software gets enough less bloated to make that workable.
Maybe... While less than perfect, I think even moving to shared browser runtimes like Tauri and similar are a boost over Electron. Not to mention shifting backend work to Rust over JS/TS. There's a lot of performance on the table to gain without even dramatically changing most of the application UI/UX.
I don't give a shit how fast and cheap the Neo is because I can't install the software I want/need on it or use it how I want.
Such as?
Feels like the Neo covers pretty much all the bases:
browsers like Chrome, Firefox, and alternatives
IDEs like VSCode, IntelliJ, Eclipse
open source heavy hitters like QGIS, Blender, Ghostty, even Gimp
unix command line tools via HomeBrew, etc
commercial suites like MS Office and Adobe
Fedora Linux
I live in RHEL and SLES world at work so I like daily driving Fedora
This is, if crude, the correct take. You always choose your applications first, then the operating system best suited for them, then the hardware platform.