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 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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

Both of them seems suicidal, 8GB RAM is really annoying to deal with.

> 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.

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.

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.

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.

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)

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 :)

What's next, in 2027 will they release laptops with 4GB RAM? Are we going backwards?

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.