Same here. It isn't hard to justify buying something like the Framework 12 in principle.
I have bought multiple Framework computers and I continue to be a fan, not because it is the best in any single category. It is because I want computers to be bought and sold in the vision that the Framework folks seem to have.
When I purchase a Framework I'm not purchasing a single computer. I'm buying a laptop-of-Theseus that I can continue to use throughout the future. When parts get broken, or a fancy new part is better, I buy the parts and upgrade it rather than buy a whole new device.
I also run an operating system that is publicly developed and available.
You won't see these things on a spec sheet or influencer demo.
When I did my research, I found that Framework costs more than the competition across the entire stack, but it's by a fixed amount, $150 give or take. That's maybe a 7% premium for a high-end laptop, but a 30% premium at the low end. Obviously the price gap vs a Neo is even wider.
The question is whether that price gap arises from a fixed cost inherent to better product design, or if it's just the cost of Framework's smaller scale. I tend to think it's the latter.
I really _hate_ laptop fan noises. That's why a Macbook Neo will win for me when I get to travel more. Hopefully the world will produce a good competition for it in the meantime.
But that's still 3 X280s if all you need an overpowered notepad. It's my daily driver for exactly that use case, so no disparage there.
And it's still overpowered for that. But it's so tiny...
Also don't buy new if it's not for (critical) business, I want to add.
And I VERY much want to encourage this approach. Laptops COULD be as modular as desktops, and they've proven it with a real machine, not a toy, not a gimmick, not a compliance-car. A genuinely useful piece of hardware that I've been daily-driving for almost 2 years now.
I very much believe in putting my money where my mouth is.
Would I go back to another laptop? Well, if someone else starts making motherboards that'll drop into this chassis, I'd consider it...
I would actually rate Neo having higher repairability. It is simply much better design and built even from a repair point of view. Speaker, Keyboard and Battery are the most common thing for repairing. It is only RAM and SSD that is better, but that is a different set of trade offs with performance and battery usage compromise.
All of which are famously nightmarish repairs on Macbooks, and line-replacable on Frameworks.
I think you're alone in this regard, I'd trust the Framework 8 days out of the week.
Not for Neo. Which is why Neo is a much bigger deal in its design, but most are focusing on its pricing.
We don't know what replacement keyboards will cost. It's probably cheaper than the $600 MBP topcase repairs that are normally warranted, but I doubt it will reach the $20 mark of Thinkpad or Framework repairs. The "repairable design" is a bartering chit for enterprise customers, not a marketing stunt for the Framework crowd. Those people are right to ignore Apple's promises here, the battle is only partway won.
So even if I could get more bang for my buck with a Neo (yeah, I could), the tinkerability and repairability win over raw specs for what I actually use it for. Did I pay more for a less polished, less powerful machine? Yep. Is it enjoyable to use and fully capable of meeting my requirements? Yep.
Came to bikeshed but the video was more nuanced and fair than this title.