MacBook Neo: Market Disruption Or Cheap Distraction?

The launch of the MacBook Neo has spurred much discussion, mostly praising Apple for lowering the starting price point for its MacBooks. The Neo’s $599 starting price has also garnered much praise at a time when ongoing DRAM and NAND shortages have caused many PC prices to skyrocket. When the MacBook Neo arrived, it seemed many pundits and PC makers went from discussing the end of the low-cost PC (at least temporarily) to figuring out how to reduce BOM costs to outdo the MacBook Neo, as if Apple just magically invented the $600 laptop when lower priced Windows PCs have been around for years.

Every OEM has to make concessions when building lower cost products. On the PC side, that usually means slower processors and GPUs, less memory and storage, basic displays, and lower quality plastics (or other build materials).

This may come as a shock to some of you, but that’s exactly what Apple has done with the MacBook Neo as well. The MacBook Neo is powered by 2+ year old iPhone-class silicon, it’s only got 8GB of RAM, relatively slow storage, no keyboard backlighting, stripped-down connectivity which includes only two USB-C ports (one of which is only USB 2.0), rudimentary two speaker stereo audio, a basic 60Hz display that does not support the wide DCI-P3 color gamut, and virtually no expandability options. In some regions, a power adapter isn’t even included. Apple didn’t compromise much on the chassis, though. The MacBook Neo features an excellent forged aluminum chassis, offered in four eye-catching colorways.

Speaking strictly about the hardware, in my opinion, it’s only the chassis that differentiates the MacBook Neo. The fact is, more affordable Windows laptops, with newer processing platforms, better connectivity, more memory and storage, similar (or better) displays, and more features are currently out there. They typically rely on plastics or composite materials for their chassis, however, and don’t offer the same kind of premium feel that the Neo does. This is the area where many PC OEMs falter. The willingness to sacrifice build quality to save a few bucks constantly hurts PC makers. One needs only remember the netbook craze from years ago for a reminder that the race to the bottom ultimately damaged the perception of the PC and the PC laptop ecosystem as a whole.

Some may also argue that battery life is one of the MacBook Neo strengths, but perusing the actual third-party, quantitative tests that have been published to date disproves that. The MacBook Neo offers very good battery life from its 36.5wHr battery, but nothing extraordinary in light of the many Snapdragon X-powered Windows laptops currently available. In fact, some Snapdragon X systems offer superior battery life at similar or lower price points, namely those from Lenovo and HP.

What About MacBook Neo Performance?

Many have also praised the MacBook Neo’s performance, but real-world performance data is nothing to write home about. The A18 Pro powering the Neo features a 6‑core CPU with 2 performance cores and 4 efficiency cores, with a 5‑core GPU and a 16-core Neural Engine also on board. Results from Geekbench show the MacBook Neo offering strong single-core CPU performance, in the same ballpark as Apple’s M3 processors. That’s a definitely plus, but it falls behind the six-year-old M1 chip in most multi-threaded workloads, including many creator workloads like video editing and encoding. For those unaware, strong single-core performance will help with general responsiveness and basic tasks, but for more demanding multi-threaded workloads, the Neo’s iPhone-class silicon with only six cores generally can’t hang with more powerful processors.

There are certain areas where the combination of Apple silicon and Apple co-optimized software (i.e. MacOS and Safari) results in better-than-expected performance, however. When running web applications or when launching particular applications, for example, the MacBook Neo excels relative to many PCs. It’s important to point this out, because these are common tasks that most users perform many times daily, and they have a huge impact on the perceived performance of a system. If a system “feels” snappy most of the time, most users will consider its performance sufficient, even if they have to wait a bit longer than expected when running a more taxing workload. Couple sufficient performance with a premium chassis that exudes quality, and that’s a winning formula for large parts of the market. Apple knows what its doing; its vertical integration affords more co-optimization opportunities that the Windows PC ecosystem simply can’t match due to the near infinite mix of potential hardware and software configurations.

On the PC side, Microsoft recently shifted gears with Windows 11 and has been making an effort to better streamline and optimize the OS, however. A recent update introduced a Low Latency Profile (LLP) mode for the OS, for example, which allows a system’s processor to boost to its maximum frequency in short spurts to improve responsiveness and application load times. Sound familiar? In light of the current DRAM shortage, Microsoft is also working with the wider ecosystem to help improve memory utilization, to enhance the experience on PCs with 8GB of RAM. Microsoft is working with its partners to ensure better quality drivers too. These are all welcome developments that should pay significant dividends, especially as Windows 11 26H2 begins rolling out.

There are also new, lower power and lower cost processing platforms coming from Intel and Qualcomm, namely the Core Series 3 (codenamed Wildcat Lake) and Snapdragon C, that will user in a new wave of more affordable PCs. Both of these platforms will help bring entry-level PC pricing down well below the $500 mark, without sacrificing nearly as much connectivity or IO as the older iPhone silicon on the Neo. Some OEMs will even be putting these chips into systems that use premium materials as well. The upcoming Dell XPS 13, for example, is thin and light, with a beautiful CNC-machined, low-carbon premium aluminum chassis, powered by Intel’s Core Series 3. I recently had my hands on a sample and the XPS 13 is very much deserving of the XPS branding, due to its premium build materials, attractive chassis, and excellent screen, relative to other systems in its $699 price band.

It All About The Experience

All of this is to say that Apple didn’t blaze some new trail with the MacBook Neo. The company made some concessions in terms of features, IO and quality, leveraged some older, previous-generation silicon, and built a more affordable MacBook. These are things PC OEMs have done for decades, with varying levels of success. The diversity of the PC ecosystem and the willingness for some companies to severely sacrifice build quality in the name of cost cutting, have damaged the PC’s perception. I think most of the more prominent OEMs have learned from these experiences, however. There is a wealth of relatively affordable PCs available from companies like Dell, HP, Lenovo, Asus, Acer and others that outdo the MacBook Neo in many meaningful ways, especially if consumers are willing to consider systems built around previous-gen silicon, of the same vintage as the A18 Pro in the Neo. There are many Dell Latitude, HP Omnibook, Lenovo Slim, Asus Zenbook, Acer Aspire and other systems, powered by Intel Core Ultra 200, Qualcomm Snapdragon X, or AMD Ryzen AI processors, with 16GB of RAM, more storage, and better connectivity available at similar price points to the MacBook Neo. Some even feature thin and light form factors with aluminum chassis.

Ultimately, I think the MacBook Neo is a more affordable way for consumers that prefer the Apple experience to own a MacBook, and not necessarily a cheap lure to pull people away from the PC. PC makers should focus on outdoing their direct competition, at price points they want to compete in, while maintaining critical build quality and design aesthetics even if that means not competing at the absolute lowest price points.