Pretty interesting to see the drop off in impressions - Twitter/X really is just a megaphone for Musk to deliver his "probably next year" wrt various product releases for the Elon-gelicals who bid up Tesla stock to meme levels.
I really can't imagine the data is even good for training Grok anymore - like if it's such a small subset of neo-nazi supporting folks - how is it even useful?
FYI, for those who are consider Framework, you are usually getting a laptop that is 2x as expensive as a Macbook but slower, with a worse screen, far worse performance and battery life, and likely not as reliable as a Mac long term.
You can basically buy 2 Macbook Airs for the same price as Framework 13 and keep one in the draw if you are ever scared that one breaks. That's how bad of a deal Framework is or how much of a value Macbooks are.
Try configuring a Framework yourself and you'll quickly find that even the basic configuration goes over $1400. Any upgrade on the CPU and you're already at $1770.[0]
You can usually get an M4 Macbook Air 16GB for $750 - $800 on sale. So you can get 2 of them for the same price as one Framework 13 and still significantly outperform it.
Framework is an idealogical buy. It just isn't worth it otherwise.
The recent base Framework 13 would cost you $1,170, Ryzen AI 5 340, with 16GB RAM, 512GB SSD and 4 full featured (USB4) USB-C ports. Note: You can buy the RAM and SSD separately, Framework even links PCPartsPicker (no price for 2x8GB RAM, so price is for single 16GB). How much storage space does your last gen M4 Macbook Air come with? 256GB would be irrelevant for most anyone, as you cannot upgrade... unlike with a Framework, where you can upgrade everything.
You are comparing dissimilar things, anyway. On a recent Macbook, you are hard stuck with MacOS. If you don't want MacOS (or ARM for that matter), Macbooks could be free and it's still the worse deal. Macbooks are subsidized by pushing you into the increasingly locked-down software/hardware ecosystem, where Apple is rent seeking. Paying for a firewall, or virtualization environment is mostly unheard of in the Linux world. It's like a cheap printer, where the real cost is DRM protected ink.
On a Framework you have excellent support for both Windows and Linux. You are free to do whatever you want.
The recent base Framework 13 would cost you $1,170, Ryzen AI 5 340, with 16GB RAM, 512GB SSD and 4 full featured (USB4) USB-C ports.
$1,170 for a laptop that uses one of AMD's lowest end laptop chip. The M4 Macbook Air can be had for $750 often. It's superior in every single way as a laptop including vastly superior performance, battery life, screen, touch pad, build quality, portability.
You can buy RAM and SSD for many other much cheaper Windows laptops too. I don't see why anyone should buy significantly overpriced Framework laptops.
You are comparing dissimilar things, anyway. On a recent Macbook, you are hard stuck with MacOS.
macOS is excellent, much better than Windows nowadays. If you're a dev, macOS is also generally superior to Linux since dev tools often come out on macOS before Linux. macOS is also generally a much better machine when you're not doing dev work.
You can argue about how Framework is better here and there but in reality, Framework only makes sense for 0.001% of laptop buyers, maybe less.
I've personally found the repairability to be worth the price for me. I got the baseline $999 back when it launched & have done stupid things like spilling a whole gallon of milk on it. Had to take it apart & clean as well as replace the keyboard but now it's still chugging along.
Used to own a MacBook & the keyboard started dying after a year with a failed A key. Very expensive to replace so I just remapped caps lock to A. Then the screen started getting weird color issues and dead pixels.
A MacBook Neo does look attractive though. Probably better performance.
They were solid before the butterfly design too. It was just Apple's inability to admit the new design was shit and their hubris that they'd engineer their way to a solution for so long that the whole world became aware of the issue when mainstream journalists started writing about it in major publications. The Wall Street Journal article with no letter 'e's was brilliant.
If you're price conscious, buy the self-assembled framework kit. It's fun and takes half an hour to assemble.
I got a framework 16 with a handful of upgrades for $1400. I added 96GB of RAM purchased separately for $300 (before the shortage). I also got a 4TB NVMe for $300. What do those upgrades cost cost in a macbook?
I think most people care more about their OS than their hardware specs, so they defend their purchase like it's part of their identity and it's hard to have a rational discussion.
Edit: If you're talking about the Intel model, I agree with you. The Ryzens are fantastic.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
> 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.
> 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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
If I could play GTA6 on Ubuntu at release, I'd probably switch, but as-is, I'll probably stay on Windows 10 indefinitely for gaming.
I've used Kubuntu as a daily driver at work several times - imo it's superior to a mac for development; Apple is so actively hostile to actually running open-source or custom software.
I have to say all my negative experiences with macOS come from policies from work and endpoint security. Not being able to strace an application is just criminal
He also cut 80% of the traffic... And the fact that it kept running with him willy nilly pulling network cables is a credit to the work they did to make it resilient to failure.
I don't have it at hand, but if you look at all the products and apis they cut - and then all the users who abandoned it in the first few months, I think that's how this was derived.
This is becoming the problem with all of his businesses - Tesla has a crazy valuation and it really seems like they're having huge trouble getting Robotaxi going in Austin given the very slow progress there.
Wamyos in SF are nearly indistinguishable from ubers/lyfts at this point. Maybe a bit slower if you don't have the highway mode enabled on your account, but they are everywhere and arrive within 5min most of the time I order one. I've ridden them so often I've lost count.
You'd have to pay me to ride in a Tesla robotaxi. That tech isn't anywhere near the same as Waymo.
Extends to the extreme levels of SaaS-ification of fairly basic app functionality as well.
It's often simpler to build something you know than to integrate a 3rd party service, but it's highly frowned upon by a lot of devs and management.
Auth and analytics are things I'm thinking of - we have good tools to build these in-house. Also just running a database - never seen so many people afraid of installing postgres and a cronjob to back it up.
Even if the AI piece isn't really true - smaller flatter teams will move faster anyway. I always wonder having worked in a lot of startups with 10-50ppl, what on earth a business does with 10000.
> I always wonder having worked in a lot of startups with 10-50ppl, what on earth a business does with 10000.
If a small business needs to send a replacement widget to a customer in a foreign country, they label it "$0 value" (as it's a free replacement part) and mail it with a swipe of a corporate credit card.
If a large business needs to do the same thing, the sender asks the mail room, giving them a budget code and delivery address; the mail room contacts the widget designer for a HTS code, size and weight; then contacts their shipping broker for a quote; then contacts the finance department to raise a purchase order; the finance department contacts the budget code owner for spend approval; then raises a purchase order; then forwards it to the sender who forwards it to the post room who forwards it to the shipping broker who arrange a collection. Later the shipping broker will send the post room an invoice against the purchase order, which they'll send on to finance, who'll query the sender who'll approve paying the invoice.
> Even if the AI piece isn't really true - smaller flatter teams will move faster anyway.
Quite possibly - but you have to remember to remove the bureaucracy, not just remove the people who operate the bureaucracy. If you try to do the large business process with the small business team, it'll be even slower.
Seconded. My experience has been that -- even while still complying with lots of overhead (e.g. government regulations and compliance) -- smaller teams of 1-3 devs move waaaaay faster than teams of 4-10. Could definitely speak to the overall codebase quality or some other factor, but yeah.
I found this an interesting question and did some research out of curiosity
[Full credits to wikipedia]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Star_Division (The company behind what's gonna be essentially StarOffice/Later OpenOffice/Libreoffice given Libreoffice is a fork of OpenOffice)
Star Division was a German software company best known for developing StarOffice, a proprietary office suite. The company was founded in 1985 by 16-year-old Marco Börries in Lüneburg, and initially operated as a small startup. Its first product was StarWriter, a word processor that later evolved into the StarOffice suite.
Their number of employees by the late 1997/1990's from the wiki article suggests
170. They/StarOffice achieved over 25 million sales worldwide and held an estimated 25% share of the office suite market in Germany by the late 1990s
There seem to be 5 main members (I am not counting the Gitlab Admin and administrator)
Interestingly, If I remember correctly, I saw Alexandar Franke in here, I have actually talked to alexandar franke a long time ago on matrix back when I used to use fractal. It was definitely a fun surprise to see him in this project as well.
Aside from that, I think the problem with MS word to me feels like it tried to copy the features of previous word processors including quirks and now anything which wants to be MS word competitor is sometimes forced to copy these quirks as well which to me feels like the stressful cause for the reason why we don't see too many new approaches within this space (in my limited opinion)
Yeah what I really meant is imagine if you reduced the actual MS Word team to just 3 people. They would not move fast because by this point Word is an enormous mature project and they wouldn't even be able to touch 1% of it.
Brooks explains this in The Mythical Man Month when he discusses how adding people to a delayed project increases the delay. Communication complexity grows exponentially as team size increases. It quickly reaches the point where it has to be controlled by procedures, forms, approvals, etc.
They're still a megacorp, roughly, with like 6k people remaining. That's a huge company. Huge companies need hierarchy to function, the "flat" thing is a really dumb idea. There's no way to make it analogous to that <50ppl team that executes well and moves fast. To do that you actually need to have a small company.
First you take a 50 person org. Then (for scale) you hire highly motivated performers who, because they came up in big orgs, are used to using 50 people for three years to do a project six people can do in three to six months. Then you create incentives that make them compete for standing. And the standing also depends on their personal scope (ie headcount).
If you have a database, you still have work to do - optimizing, understanding indexes, etc. Managed services don't solve these problems for you magically and once you do them, just running the db itself isn't such a big deal and it's probably easier to tune for what you want to do.
Absolutely yes. But you have to do this either way. So it's just purely additive work to run the infrastructure as well.
I think if it were true that the tuning is easier if you run the infrastructure yourself, then this would be a good point. But in my experience, this isn't the case for a couple reasons. First of all, the majority of tuning wins (indexes, etc.) are not on the infrastructure side, so it's not a big win to run it yourself. But then also, the professionals working at a managed DB vendor are better at doing the kind of tuning that is useful on the infra side.
Maybe, but you're paying through the nose continually for something you could learn to do once - or someone on your team could easily learn with a little time and practice. Like, if this is a tradeoff you want to make, it's fine, but at some point learning that 10% more can halve your hosting costs so it's well worth it.
It's not the learning, it's the ongoing commitment of time and energy into something that is not a differentiator for the business (unless it is actually a database hosting business).
I can see how the cost savings could justify that, but I think it makes sense to bias toward avoiding investing in things that are not related to the core competency of the business.
I really can't imagine the data is even good for training Grok anymore - like if it's such a small subset of neo-nazi supporting folks - how is it even useful?