Comment by afavour
1 day ago
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.
> 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.
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?
2 replies →
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.
the apple way to upgrade is to sell your old neo and buy neo 2. I wonder if the math changes when we take long term use into account