[znpy]

I think this reasoning is just disconnected from reality.

Reality is, the iphone 16 sharing the same chipset is perfectly functional for many more years to come, running similar workloads (for the same target audience): mainly web browsing.

If the iphone 16 can have the usual 3-6 years of useful life, then the macbook neo has the same -- FOR ITS INTENDED PURPOSE.

And I wrote this because I did actually get the macbook neo and I'm using it daily for the intended purpose (mostly web browsing) and it's just fine.

(if anybody is wondering: i have a large machine with 16c/32t and 128gb memory that i use remotely via ssh to do the "heavy stuff")

> This model might trigger planned obsolescence legislation in some jurisdictions.

That legislation is at least ten years late but apple is absolutely not the worst offender. There is the entire market of cheap android phones (and tablets) that barely last a year or two, and have essentially no guaranteed software upgrade. That should have triggered the legislation in the first place.

[close04]

The Neo not only exposes functionality that would prove limiting on the iPhone too, but it’s mostly used that way. First thing that comes to mind is true multi-window multitasking. The apps are standard Mac apps that don’t assume a RAM limited system, not dedicated “made for Neo” apps like the iPhone has.

Overall this limitation has the potential to be much more visible on the Neo and Apple must make real sure that the OS stays lean because we all know average app devs don’t care about this.

[fauigerzigerk]

iOS takes a very different approach to managing app memory though. And the intended purpose of a phone isn't quite the same as that of a laptop either, especially not for people who don't have an extra 128GB memory machine lying around. I'm not sure the comparison makes a whole lot of sense.