My nephew just graduated high school, and wants a laptop. When he decides what computer to buy, price (or more precisely, value) is the most important attribute.
Apple's MacBook Neo upended the 'value laptop' equation—Apple's not supposed to be both the cheapest option and the best value... but it seems like that's squarely where the Neo landed for the good-but-cheap laptop category.
My nephew is also my godson, and to kick off his computing journey, I thought I'd let him choose from a Framework 12 I bought to test, or the MacBook Neo I bought a couple months ago to use around the studio.
I’ve always thought of the value proposition of the framework as being it’s capacity for upgrade.
You should obviously start from a level of compute that meets your requirements, but the additional cost for the framework was always the price of the ability to change out parts later (at the very least the idea of it)
It feels like an apples to oranges comparison but with the only success criteria being the things an apple is designed for (pun intended).
If performance to price ratio was the only criteria they are interested in , the framework shouldn’t even be in the race.
Not only upgradeability, but repairability, being able to swap components, and the general open nature of the hardware.
Less e-waste and Linux compatibility are nice, as well.
I agree, in my mind repairability is implied by the ability to upgrade but that isn’t always the case.
These have both.
Exactly. I bought my Framework solely because it’s so easy to swap parts. I got burned by a bad Lenovo Legion, and I wanted something I could actually repair (and was designed with that in mind.) Excellent Linux compatibility didn’t hurt, either.
I got it for the repair potential, the ability to swap port modules, and to support the idea behind a repairable/upgradeable/modular laptop. I’m still hoping for better 3rd party module options to become a thing, but even if they don’t I still think the extra cost was worth it.