How not to get desperate with MVVM implementation

Thanks for the post!
Judging by described flow, we end-up with the same architecture VC⇄VM instead of VC⇄M in MVC example. 
Shouldn’t Model take cafe of networking services usage and access to persistence storage while ViewModel — of preparing data for presentation and bindings with ViewController?
Or is it an example of ‘fat’ ViewModel?

Like what you read? Give Alexander Voronov a round of applause.

From a quick cheer to a standing ovation, clap to show how much you enjoyed this story.