[zapnuk]

Framework Laptop is more expensive than a Macbook Air with all around worse hardware. For a framework 13 I'd have to pay 1900€ with a 16GB setup. For 1450 I get a MBA with 24GB ram. Similar with a dell or lenovo who get smoked in performance comparisons.

It might still be worth it for those who hugely value open source and repairability but as for value I think its save to say that Apple is currently in a league of their own. Even if the altest os update is a flop.

Also, the Macbook has improved repairability. While its still not great its better than a few years ago.

[ChuckMcM]

> Framework Laptop is more expensive than a Macbook Air with all around worse hardware.

Is it though? I'd agree the hardware is less capable but if your Macbook anything is really just one 'top case' repair away from being more expensive. RAM failure is 'motherboard replace', the display? it is similarly expensive to replace.

So I would agree that it is more expensive to purchase a Framework laptop than a Macbook laptop, but also feel it is more expensive to own a Macbook laptop than a Framework laptop. Also I just replaced the screen on my FW13 not because it was broken but because they have one with 4x the pixels on it now. That's not something I could have done with the Macbook.

[wat10000]

What is the probability of those things failing during the time you have the MacBook? I've had Apple portables since they were called PowerBooks and the only problem I've had that wasn't caused by violence was a battery swelling, and that cost me something like $120 to replace, not a big deal. If you add 5% to the price, that's probably about your expected cost for repairs or premature replacements if you don't have a habit of damaging your equipment.

If'd rather not take a low risk of a big repair/replacement bill and you don't mind helping Big Fruit make a bit more of a profit, you can pay them $50-150/year (depending on model) to take that risk. Multiply that by the number of years you expect to own the device to come up with a "real" cost including repairs/replacements.

[stavros]

My Framework 13 is a bit long in the tooth. I can pay 529 EUR to get a new mainboard and keep the same case/battery/speakers/camera/keyboard/mouse/screen/etc. Or, I can replace the keyboard for 32 EUR.

It's not just repairs, to upgrade a Mac you have to throw away all that perfectly working hardware just to get a new mainboard.

[gertop]

> I can pay 529 EUR to get a new mainboard and keep the same case/battery/speakers/camera/keyboard/mouse/screen/etc.

Or you can spend 50 euros more and get an entire new laptop that is not only much more powerful than your old framework but is almost as repairable: the neo.

At some point your argument begins to work against you, you should just have talked about the keyword repair being cheap. Not how you can get a new motherboard for "only" 530 euros.

[exo762]

> Or you can spend 50 euros more and get an entire new laptop that is not only much more powerful than your old framework but is almost as repairable: the neo.

You forget to mention - less powerful than his old FW 13 with new mainboard/CPU.

[aurareturn]

I assume he's referring to the AMD AI 340 for 530 euros.[0]

Macbook Neo 31% faster ST speed and a bit slower on the MT.[1]

I wouldn't call the Neo less powerful than his 530 euros upgrade. In fact, I'd much rather have the faster ST speed in this kind of laptop. Most of the apps you're running with this class of laptops will be ST bound anyway.

You can literally get a brand new Macbook Neo using Apple EDU pricing for the price of a slower AMD motherboard upgrade. This is why Framework is an absolutely terrible deal overall. I'm not even convinced that Framework is better for the environment since Apple laptops last extremely long and will very often have second and third hand buyers.

[0]https://frame.work/nl/en/products/mainboard-amd-ai300?v=FRAN...

[1]https://browser.geekbench.com/v6/cpu/compare/17360869?baseli...

[ChuckMcM]

> What is the probability of those things failing during the time you have the MacBook?

and

> ... you can pay them $50-150/year (depending on model) to take that risk.

These things are related, Apple knows what the failure rate in the field for their hardware is, and they "price in" that failure rate into their AppleCare costs. On my iPad pro, that's $90/year.

That said, it is entirely a 'bet' on your part as to whether or not you're in a position to cover costs of repair/replacement in the event of damage. That depends on a lots of factors and includes how much you can tolerate not having the equipment for a while, Etc.

[Esophagus4]

The downside of an Apple is generally you can’t improve the hardware by replacing it piecemeal as new hardware comes out.

That was my goal buying a Framework… to get to refresh hardware regularly as better stuff came out rather than waiting 10 years to buy a new laptop.

Will it work that way in reality? No idea, but I thought it was at least interesting enough to take a gamble.

[mittensc]

I can configure a 1400E framework 13 with a bring-my-own ssd + linux.

I can drop it down to 1050E without the ram if i take ram from my older laptop.

Upgrading or fixing this is very easy. RAM/SSD i can take with me over multiple generations of a laptop.

I can't do that on a macbook, if anything breaks there (screen, ssd, ram, keyboard, battery bulging...) I might as well buy another.

Then there's the issue of macos... you're stuck with it, if you don't like it, it's a dealbreaker.

There's also issue of waste... I can make a router/firewall from an old framework mobo. I can't do that with a macbook.

[zapnuk]

Sure, a poweruser can bring their own ram/ssd. But again they pay almost as much and have a worse system performance wise.

Normal users don't profit from anything you listed. They do have to buy a notebook with all components, and thus currently have to pay more for linux/windows hardware compared to Apple.

Also, RAM isn't backwards compatiple. Literally had this problem with my old ddr4 not fitting in the newer ddr5 slots when my ddr5 acted up.

[mittensc]

> Normal users don't profit from anything you listed.

They can get their technical friends to set up a laptop for them and profit from what I mentioned.

> They do have to buy a notebook with all components

Sure, first time they do that, then they can reuse.

> and thus currently have to pay more for linux/windows hardware compared to Apple.

Sure, first time they do that. If they try framework, there are plenty of other cheaper options with pretty good specs.

> Also, RAM isn't backwards compatiple. Literally had this problem with my old ddr4 not fitting in the newer ddr5 slots when my ddr5 acted up.

Of course... but once you have something with ddr5 it should last you a long time, same as DDR4 did.

Now... you missed another point, some people just don't like or want MacOS, as nice as hardware might be, it's not acceptable software wise.

As for normal people, they'll just buy whatever is cheapest. If they even bother since phones/tables have already taken over.

I'm not sure laptops will have a market other then power users going forward...

[bigyabai]

It's not just Tahoe; macOS is simply insufferable for many users. You can pitch Apple Silicon to gamers, warship captains or datacenter users, but they won't care when the dust settles. It's a device for people that want a Mac, and if you want a PC, server or homelab then you gotta get different hardware. It's entirely a software limitation, imposed by Apple.

I don't value open source or repairability that much. I just want to develop server software, and on macOS I always end up with the same janky VM-based workflow I suffer through on Windows. On the desktop I have no reason to waste my time with macOS, and I don't use a laptop often enough to justify reincorporating macOS into my life.