What can `__init__` do that `__new__` cannot?

Per When to use __new__ vs. __init__

__new__ is the first step of instance creation. It's called first, and is responsible for returning a new instance of your class. In contrast, __init__ doesn't return anything; it's only responsible for initializing the instance after it's been created.

Also the class of class is type, and type.__call__() is implemented something like below refer to the above description:

def __call__(cls, *args, **kwargs):
    obj = cls.__new__(cls, *args, **kwargs)
    if isinstance(obj, cls):
        obj.__init__(*args, **kwargs)
    return obj

We know __init__() just do a part of __new__() can do anything to that object before the object is returned.

In general, you shouldn't need to override __new__ unless you're subclassing an immutable type like str, int, unicode or tuple.

So it is not good to remove __init__ from the language, and it is better to always use __init__() better than using __new__().

Here is one history of Low-level constructors and __new__().

Note about difference between __new__ and __init__

Before explaining missing functionality let's get back to definition of __new__ and __init__:

__new__ is the first step of instance creation. It's called first, and is responsible for returning a new instance of your class.

However, __init__ doesn't return anything; it's only responsible for initializing the instance after it's been created.

Consequences of replacing __init__ with __new__

Mainly you would lose out on flexibility. You would get a lot of semantics headaches and loose separation of initializatin and construction (by joining __new__ andinit we are to joining construction and initialization into one step...). Let's take a look on snippet below:

class A(object):
    some_property = 'some_value'

    def __new__(cls, *args, **kwargs):
        obj = object.__new__(cls, *args, **kwargs)
        obj.some_property = cls.some_property
        return obj


class B(A):
    some_property = 2

    def __new__(cls, *args, **kwargs):
        obj = super(B, cls).__new__(cls)
        return obj

Consequences of moving __init__ actions into __new__:

1. Initialize B before A: When you are using __new__ method instead of __init__ your first step of creating new instance of B is calling A.__new__ as side effect you cannot initialize B before A is initialized ( access and assign some properties to new B instance). Using of __init__ gives you such flexability.

2. Loose control on initializing order: let's imagine that you have B_N inherited from two classes (A_N1, A_N2), now you would miss controlling of order of initializing new instance of B_N(what is the order you are going to initialize instances ? it could be matter... what is weird.)

3. Properties and methods mess: you would miss access to A.some_property (cls would be equal to B while instantiating new instance of B. However directly accessing of A.some_property is possible, but my guess it's at least weird to access properties within class throught class name and not by using classmethods).

4. You cannot re-initialize an existed instance without creating new one or implementation special logic for this ( thanks to @platinhom for idea )

What can __init__ do that __new__ cannot?

There are no actions that cannot be done in __new__ and can in __init__, because actions that __init__ performs is a subset of the actions that can be performed by __new__.

An interesting moment from Python Docs, Pickling and unpickling normal class instances#object.getinitargs regarding when __init__ could be usefull:

When a pickled class instance is unpickled, its init() method is normally not invoked.

Everything you can do in __init__ can also be done in __new__.

Then, why use __init__?
Because you don't have to store instance in variable (obj in your example code), and later bother returning it. You can focus on what you realy want to do – initializing mutable object.