I have an M4 Air and I just pre-ordered 3 Neos. One for myself, one for my niece as a present and one for my parents to replace their Windows laptop.
I honestly don't understand people who complain about the lack of M5 Pro specs and features on a £599 Macbook. "Oh no, it's 1/3rd of the price of a Pro but I want the Pro specs on it." People seriously need to do think twice before pressing the submit button. And nobody in the right mind would buy a used Macbook for the same price, just because it's more powerful.
I have an 8G M2 at work and it's more than enough and I have two browsers running with 20+ tabs, Teams, Outlook, Figma, VScode... If you are a power user buy a Macbook Pro, you can't reasonable expect Pro performance out of a device that costs a third.
This Neo is going to sell like crazy because it's an amazing product for the price. That's how much Chromebooks cost but you actually get a full desktop OS rather than a web browser. And for students to buy a new Macbook for £499 come on, some of these comments are just ridiculous.
> And nobody in the right mind would buy a used Macbook for the same price, just because it's more powerful.
I would buy a used Macbook Pro for the same price, just because it is more powerful. I have bought used Macbook Pros for many years, and have never had any problem. Apple gear is durable, and I've never had any SSD issues or problems with dead pixels. The laptop I'm typing this on is a 2021 M1 Max, so 5 years old now, and I just did an SSD health check, it is 100% after 5 years of heavy use. It easily has 5 more years of life.
It's not a replacement, it's an addition. My Air is stationary and it doesn't leave my desk due to lots of cables plugged in and I want something that I can take with me around the house if I decide to chill elsewhere for a bit. I was looking at Windows laptops for a long time and it was either a Chromebook or £1k+ which I couldn't justify.
Anything for the price of the Neo that I could find was an ugly looking 15" piece of plastic from Asus or Lenovo (no offense, I love my Thinkpads).
However I do have to say again that I use an 8G M2 at work without any issues and I've had an M1 as a temp replacement for work recently again without any issues and they say A18 is equivalent to M1 in performance so I really don't see why this new Neo wouldn't be enough for a home/personal laptop. All my consumption is SaaS-based, I really don't need better spec. What I need is a lower price and familiarity that I appreciate and I think Apple nailed it here by offering both in a product.
"EU vehicle safety regulations have supported a 36% reduction in European road deaths since 2010. By contrast, road deaths in the US over the same period increased 30%, with pedestrian deaths up 80% and cyclist deaths up 50%."
Of course, we are talking about two completely different sets of traffic cultures here (urban design, laws etc.) but I wouldn't be surprised if this gets accepted fully as part of a trade deal. EU isn't a strong negotiator, caves easily under American pressure and Trump has a firm hand and knows how to get the best deal for himself.
The only place on the entire continent where I've seen American cars being driven is the Netherlands and they stick out like a sore thumb. They are too big, too loud, too heavy, emit massively more CO2, usually don't have good acceleration (which you need into/out of roundabouts). Just not a good fit for European roads and streets. God forbid you crash into a pedestrian or a cyclists, you kill them instantly. They are built like a tank whereas European cars will self-destroy to preserve pedestrian life.
It's not bad, I barely noticed the change. Most of the comments are just trolls by people who don't own a Macbook, as you can see from their posts suggesting their Framework laptops and Arch linux.
You could buy a Lenovo with the same spec for a good grand less. And people buy Macbooks so that they don't have to deal with the abomination that is called Linux/GNU and GPL, not for the hardware.
I don't understand such statement. Automation has already created more job opportunities, why should this be any different? Jobs don't go away, they just transform. And since this AI (whatever that means, nobody really knows) isn't a human-like AGI, it will most certainly not replace humans, but it will automate processes and speed things up.
If you're a business that offers 3 services to the public and "AI" could automate one person's salary out of your payroll, why would do that as opposed to keeping your headcount and instead offer 9 services to the public generating more streams of revenue?
Especially when companies lay off the workers that would normally consume license seats or purchase consumer goods with job wages.
Funny how all these boosters bragging about automating the economy seem to conveniently forget how much of the economy, in some way, is based around headcount and consumption - both of which are going down due to AI with no replacement being pitched, almost as if that were the plan all along.
That's at least more of an argument than "it never happened before so it cannot happen in the future".
Money cannot disappear, but circulation can be confined to ever-smaller segments of the economy. Let's assume a world in which AI is good enough to do 90% if all white-collar jobs and companies have replaced positions with AI accordingly. Then the amount of money that entered the wider economy through salaries will now stay locked up in B2B transactions between AI companies, their corporate customers and their contractors. How will all the laid-off people get money? Some would probably get into blue-collar work, others will try their hand starting a business (that will also compete with AI), but all of them? What will happen to the businesses that were relying on those employees as customers?
> Some would probably get into blue-collar work, others will try their hand starting a business (that will also compete with AI), but all of them?
Yes, that's exactly what will happen and you can even now see examples of unemployed software engineer building successful one-man gigs with the help of AI(not competing).
I think the concept of stable long term jobs as we knew is gone. Which might not be a bad thing.
What you're saying is that no matter the level of automation we have to keep working as much, and we have to consume as much as the system asks us to consume, because now we need a sucker to pay for these 6 new extra "services"
Maybe, just maybe, we could slow things down, profit from the time saved instead of trying to squeeze more out of every fucking thing we put our hands on.
Much of what was automated is physical labor which allowed workers to move into "service/intellectual" jobs. When tractors and dump trucks removed the need for masses of people to move dirt, it didn't create more jobs of moving dirt around since those jobs could also be tackled by more tractors and dump trucks. If AI is what all these "AI evangelicals" claim, then most intellectual jobs would be gone. And it won't create more service/intellectual jobs for humans because whatever new jobs are created would be tackled by AI.
> If you're a business that offers 3 services to the public and "AI" could automate one person's salary out of your payroll, why would do that as opposed to keeping your headcount and instead offer 9 services to the public generating more streams of revenue?
If AI could automate one person's job, why would you keep him? You can offer 9 services with one less person.
Moving dirt around is an input into many other things. Because moving dirt around is now cheap, we now build a lot more and a lot better roads than we did when moving dirt had to be done with human / animal labor. That road system directly and indirectly created millions of jobs.
Similarly, software is a crucial input to pretty much everything in modern society. More / better software would create tons of new jobs.
I'm not so sure that more worse software will create those jobs though, and that seems to be the direction we're moving with AI.
> we now build a lot more and a lot better roads than we did when moving dirt had to be done with human / animal labor.
Sure, with far less human labor. That's my point.
> That road system directly and indirectly created millions of jobs.
Yes. That's my point. It created millions of service/intellectual jobs. Or are you saying the highway system created more jobs for those who own shovels?
If people moved from physical to intellectual labor in the past century. What will people move into if intellectual work is mostly done by AI. Assuming that the AI the evangelicals promise comes to fruition.
> When tractors and dump trucks removed the need for masses of people to move dirt, it didn't create more jobs of moving dirt around since those jobs could also be tackled by more tractors and dump trucks
It created dump truck driver / maintenance / engineer / safety / fuel supply / parts factoring / etc jobs. I wouldn't say that's an example of creating zero jobs.
>If you're a business that offers 3 services to the public and "AI" could automate one person's salary out of your payroll, why would do that as opposed to keeping your headcount and instead offer 9 services to the public generating more streams of revenue?
Because cost cutting increases share-holder value. See Jack Welch at GE. Over time he destroyed the company but also raised the share price tremendously.
And lo, new companies were created to fill the void. AI will cause quite a shakeup but short term stock manipulation eventually needs to be paid off (let's call it "management debt" like "tech debt").
The simpler way to view this is that AI creates value. We can argue how much and what kind, but our economy is reliant on ever-increasing value and is pretty good at utilizing it.
Microsoft didn't get smaller when computers got better, their market got much bigger.
> Framework laptops are wonderful, modern and (arguably?) cheaper to own in the long-term thanks to being able to replace components, particularly the entire mainboard as time progresses.
That is entirely false. Replacing the mainboard itself costs the same amount of money as a new laptop (an entire device). Their component prices are on their website under "Shop Parts", so you can verify that for yourself. I can buy a brand new Ryzen 7000 series laptop for the price of replacing a Ryzen 7000 series mainboard for a Framework laptop. Their laptops are also a lot more expensive than same spec branded ones from Asus, Lenovo and Dell that have better build quality and design.
I don't know where does this myth come from. The cost of replacing individual component is more expensive than replacing an entire device which people do not do because it needs repairing or often even upgrading, but because they're sick of the sight of it. You can't replace one component and extend the life of your PC another full cycle because you'll soon have to replace other components too. So when it comes to upgrading you have to consider the price of upgrading all available components to get the true cost as opposed to buying a new device.
Eventually, sooner rather than later, both RAM and SSD will come soldered on, so the only thing you will be able to replace is the battery and the screen. Both which 99% users never have to replace.
I am a Thinkpad user myself, have had them for both work and pleasure. Recently upgraded my old T14 for an X13 after reading and watching a lot of Framework reviews. It's just simply a gimmick, with a lot of quality issues, being sustained by having LTT name behind it.
> Replacing the mainboard itself costs the same amount of money as a new laptop (an entire device). Their component prices are on their website under "Shop Parts", so you can verify that for yourself. I can buy a brand new Ryzen 7000 series laptop for the price of replacing a Ryzen 7000 series mainboard for a Framework laptop.
That’s not true, you must be comparing unlike boards and machines.
7840U and 8840HS are essentially the same CPU and the difference in performance between 7840U and 7735HS is minimal, few % at best. So these three are comparable. I'm sorry but for the price of a replacement mainboard I can buy a brand new whole laptop with memory, storage, screen, the everything that comes with it. Am I the only one who just doesn't get the hype behind a repairable laptop?
Huh... I think the Pound is over valued or something. It's $699 CAD (currently discounted mind you) which is something like £380 (according to Google today).
I have a 12th Gen 13 but I will probably wait one more generation and either get that or a discounted Strixpoint MB (since it'll be a generation back and presumably cheaper).
> I can buy a brand new Ryzen 7000 series laptop for the price of replacing a Ryzen 7000 series mainboard for a Framework laptop.
I haven't been able to confirm this (I found laptop prices running at about twice the cost of the mainboard), but I wonder if you're comparing an EOL runout model from a place that can afford heavy discounts against a standard price from a smaller company. If you just need a laptop and you're not too fussy, that's definitely a fair choice. But if you're buying a laptop for ten years, you probably aren't going to settle for the unsold 16GB 512GB.
> Their laptops are also a lot more expensive than same spec branded ones from Asus, Lenovo and Dell that have better build quality and design.
I guess a Framework isn't for someone who wants a same spec Asus, Lenovo or Dell.
> Eventually, sooner rather than later, both RAM and SSD will come soldered on, so the only thing you will be able to replace is the battery and the screen.
This is 173% fud. If it happens, it's because Framework is dead and there's some different company that bought their branding and just wants to use it for market segmentation. I definitely have to rate the chances that Framework has died as one of the risks of buying them, whereas I wouldn't concern myself with the risk of System76 dying, because a typical laptop lasts well past its warranty, but the point of Framework is indeed what happens in that post-warranty period.
I'm not a huge fan of Frameworks. I left a critical review on another comment. I'm not sure at all if they fit my needs, and having recently discovered the wonder of tailscale I'm now debating if my next computer will be a Framework vs a headless desktop + a dumb laptop. So even if a Framework doesn't fit my needs, they're still the only laptop that seems to. But your criticisms don't at all seem grounded enough.
This is 173% fud. If it happens, it's because Framework is dead
Take a look at the Framework desktop, it comes with soldered on RAM. Not because of any active decisions made by Framework, but simply because that's how that CPU ships. It literally didn't support RAM slots. I can only see this trend continuing. I don't doubt that Framework will be the last hold out in the fight against soldered on RAM and SSDs, but sooner or later if they want to keep shipping the latest CPUs, they probably won't have too much of a choice in the matter.
My gut is that Framework shipping a desktop with soldered RAM was simply a compromise of opportunity, given the LLM boom and interest in AMD Strix Halo. I can only guess, but I'm betting the Intel desktop will not have soldered parts. I'm further hopeful that if folks need to upgrade this specific device that there will be a healthy second hand market hungry for them like there is for used Nvidia GPU's.
But I do agree that the trend of soldered SoC-like will grow, seeing that less than 1 in 10 consumers ever upgrade a computer. Apple silicon has been out for four years and I don't really come across a lot of grumbling about their integrated components which gives me hope that it's a tenable option and we're worried about nothing.
FW asked AMD about lpcamm memory and AMD looked into it (assigned an engineer and everything) but came back and said no it couldn't be done (I am guessing without crippling performance).
I would be in the market for the MB only but I think I can build a 9950 based system cheaper, but I am not running AI models locally.
> the only thing you will be able to replace is the battery and the screen. Both which 99% users never have to replace.
This is sarcasm, I hope, right? The two most consumable items in the laptop (specially for OLED screens), and you're suggesting users have no need to replace them?
Yes that's exactly what I'm suggesting. The two things I never had to replace since I got my first laptop in the late 90s, not do I know anyone who had to replace those.
Well I have had to replace hinges, upgrade RAM, replace the battery, change HDD to SSD, replace a broken keyboard, an entire enclosure and finally a dying motherboard after 11 years of use. The laptop is still working but it could have really used a screen upgrade.
Maybe standard screen definition is now good enough, RAM big enough, SSD more durable, shell more durable (although I have to say that's a disappointment with the fw) and hinges longer lasting, and maybe Framework is fighting the last war but that's the reason I went for one anyways.
This is a long run bet and if it doesn't pan out to be an amazing deal, it will still a better experience than the previous one.
It costed more than my previous laptop but no more or less what I have had to pay to maintain the previous one. If it had been a framework, it would still be my workhorse.
I honestly don't understand people who complain about the lack of M5 Pro specs and features on a £599 Macbook. "Oh no, it's 1/3rd of the price of a Pro but I want the Pro specs on it." People seriously need to do think twice before pressing the submit button. And nobody in the right mind would buy a used Macbook for the same price, just because it's more powerful.
I have an 8G M2 at work and it's more than enough and I have two browsers running with 20+ tabs, Teams, Outlook, Figma, VScode... If you are a power user buy a Macbook Pro, you can't reasonable expect Pro performance out of a device that costs a third.
This Neo is going to sell like crazy because it's an amazing product for the price. That's how much Chromebooks cost but you actually get a full desktop OS rather than a web browser. And for students to buy a new Macbook for £499 come on, some of these comments are just ridiculous.
reply