Apple declares 12-inch MacBook from 2015 a vintage product

Posted:
in Current Mac Hardware edited July 1
Apple has added the very first 12-inch MacBook to be released to its list of vintage and obsolete products, limiting the support options that owners have.

Credit: Apple
Credit: Apple


The 12-inch MacBook from 2015 was added to Apple's list of vintage and obsolete products on June 30. The device's addition to the vintage product list comes about six years after the laptop first launched.

The 12-inch MacBook was Apple's smallest Mac to house a Retina display and was priced at $1,299.

Apple updated the MacBook with fresh internals in 2016 and again in 2017. However, the company quietly discontinued the model in 2019

Apple defines "vintage" devices as those that have not been manufactured for more than five years but fewer than seven years. "Obsolete" products, on the other hand, are those that have been discontinued for more than seven years. Obsolete products are not able to receive hardware service from Apple technicians or Authorized Service Providers, with "no exceptions."

Keep up with everything Apple in the weekly AppleInsider Podcast -- and get a fast news update from AppleInsider Daily. Just say, "Hey, Siri," to your HomePod mini and ask for these podcasts, and our latest HomeKit Insider episode too.If you want an ad-free main AppleInsider Podcast experience, you can support the AppleInsider podcast by subscribing for $5 per month through Apple's Podcasts app, or via Patreon if you prefer any other podcast player.

Comments

  • Reply 1 of 18
    sdw2001sdw2001 Posts: 17,586member
    I take it my mid 2015 MBP (purchased 2016) will be on the list very soon 
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 2 of 18
    macseekermacseeker Posts: 507member
    sdw2001 said:
    I take it my mid 2015 MBP (purchased 2016) will be on the list very soon 
    I hope not.  I did read that the 2015 MBP made the list as supported for macOS Monterey.  Yep, I have the 15 inch version.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 3 of 18
    sflocalsflocal Posts: 5,661member
    sdw2001 said:
    I take it my mid 2015 MBP (purchased 2016) will be on the list very soon 
    And even if it were, will it suddenly stop working?  
    lkruppspock1234uraharawatto_cobra
  • Reply 4 of 18
    RonkelRonkel Posts: 2member
    sflocal said:
    sdw2001 said:
    I take it my mid 2015 MBP (purchased 2016) will be on the list very soon 
    And even if it were, will it suddenly stop working?  
    No, but people keep making these kinds of uninformed connections and think "vintage" means "not supported by macOS anymore" or "I guess the new MacBook Pro will come out with Monterey", etc.

    This has never been the case.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 5 of 18
    MplsPMplsP Posts: 3,152member
    "Obsolete" products, on the other hand, are those that have been discontinued for more than seven years. Obsolete products are not able to receive hardware service from Apple technicians or Authorized Service Providers, with "no exceptions."
    This is another argument for right to repair laws. 
    GeorgeBMacgatorguyCloudTalkinkingofsomewherehot
  • Reply 6 of 18
    riverkoriverko Posts: 123member
    I still have my MBP Retina mid 2012, the very first retina model. Only had to get my battery replaced in a third party service shop. Otherwise works perfectly fine, only doesn’t get the latest MacOS versions. So it’s not about some status on the list but if it still fits the needs or not…
    MplsPwatto_cobra
  • Reply 7 of 18
    GeorgeBMacGeorgeBMac Posts: 9,869member
    MplsP said:
    "Obsolete" products, on the other hand, are those that have been discontinued for more than seven years. Obsolete products are not able to receive hardware service from Apple technicians or Authorized Service Providers, with "no exceptions."
    This is another argument for right to repair laws. 

    I agree....
    While I support Apple's walled garden approach to hardware repairs, I also think that Apple should not use that to cut users off from obtaining (or performing) the support they need in a planned obsolescence approach.

    Part of the problem may be that this is an outdated policy:   Not very long ago, 7 years was ancient for a computer.   Today, 7 year old computers can and do run well and serve the needs of their users very well.  The Thinkpad I'm typing this on was originally made in 2012 (8 years ago).  It sports 16Gb memory and a 256Gb SSD along with an i7 processor and a 1 Gb GPU.   I runs just as well as my friend's brand new Lenovo Ideapad and far better than the brand new Dell my grandson's school loaned to him in 2020.  To scrap my Thinkpad for a minor, fixable problem would be foolish.  But, if Lenovo blocked me from fixing it I would be pissed -- fortunately parts for it are easily obtained and Lenovo provides detailed descriptions on how to remove the old and install the new -- all the way down to the motherboard.

    Apple can't have it both ways:  Restrict repairs (and parts) to themselves, then force users to scrap highly functional systems because even minor problems can't be repaired.
    muthuk_vanalingamgatorguy
  • Reply 8 of 18
    CloudTalkinCloudTalkin Posts: 886member
    This comment was typed on a 17" mid 2010 MBP running High Sierra... with nVidia graphic no less.  Still does everything I want it to do.  Still does almost everything my 2015 MBP can do.  It has aged nicely.  This monster has been "Obsolete" for over 5 years and still runs like a champ.  An older retired champ, but a champ nonetheless. 
    Heck, even the gigantic BookBook I keep it stored in has aged nicely.   Any issues that occurred during it's lifetime were mostly repaired by me or my guy who's been repairing computers since the late 80's.

    Truthfully, I never liked the MB.  I thought it was a compromised stopgap computer.  That being said, I'm sure anybody with one should have it for quite a while.  Caveat being the health of the keyboard.  I doubt it will last as long as my gray aircraft carrier, but it should be around for a while.
    kingofsomewherehot
  • Reply 9 of 18
    dewmedewme Posts: 3,699member
    MplsP said:
    "Obsolete" products, on the other hand, are those that have been discontinued for more than seven years. Obsolete products are not able to receive hardware service from Apple technicians or Authorized Service Providers, with "no exceptions."
    This is another argument for right to repair laws. 

    I agree....
    While I support Apple's walled garden approach to hardware repairs, I also think that Apple should not use that to cut users off from obtaining (or performing) the support they need in a planned obsolescence approach.

    Part of the problem may be that this is an outdated policy:   Not very long ago, 7 years was ancient for a computer.   Today, 7 year old computers can and do run well and serve the needs of their users very well.  The Thinkpad I'm typing this on was originally made in 2012 (8 years ago).  It sports 16Gb memory and a 256Gb SSD along with an i7 processor and a 1 Gb GPU.   I runs just as well as my friend's brand new Lenovo Ideapad and far better than the brand new Dell my grandson's school loaned to him in 2020.  To scrap my Thinkpad for a minor, fixable problem would be foolish.  But, if Lenovo blocked me from fixing it I would be pissed -- fortunately parts for it are easily obtained and Lenovo provides detailed descriptions on how to remove the old and install the new -- all the way down to the motherboard.

    Apple can't have it both ways:  Restrict repairs (and parts) to themselves, then force users to scrap highly functional systems because even minor problems can't be repaired.

    Trying to get my head wrapped around this with respect to "right to repair" arguments ...

    Are you saying that Apple refusing to service a product declared as "obsolete" within their own service network (in house and authorized providers, i.e., in-network) is somehow keeping owners of these products from getting repairs performed on their products anywhere?

    Products declared as obsolete, vintage, or whatever can still be repaired, out-of-network by anyone willing to take on the job, but Apple isn't going to assume any liability whatsoever for guaranteeing the quality of the repair or functionality of the product when repairs are performed out-of-network, even when no in-network repair option is available. This is no different than any other product, regardless of "right to repair." I can bring a 1974 Oldsmobile, which can be rightfully repaired anywhere, even in my garage, to the corner garage for a transmission repair. If the tranny blows up in a week, it's between me and the garage to figure out what happens next. The original manufacturer, GM, is no longer in the loop at all.

    There's a big difference between "right to repair" and "design for serviceability/repairability." The former one, right to repair, is something that can be resolved through the establishment of authorized service and repair networks, certification processes, etc. It can also be time and model/version limited. The latter, design for serviceability/repairability, is going to be brutally difficult to force on any product maker in any industry and for any product. It's a product quality attribute that defines the marketability and differentiation of every product ever made.

    Why pick on smartphones and computers? Should toasters be serviceable? Should TV remotes be serviceable? Should Sleep Number beds be serviceable? Flame throwers? Big screen TVs? Toys?

    Who gets to decide what constitutes "proper" serviceability/repairability on every product designed, updated, or redesigned? Are we back to forcing big round headlights on every automobile and vehicle on the road? Maybe smartphones should be required use D-cell batteries?

    As long as I can bring my obsolete broken MacBook to anyone who's willing to try to fix it, or filet it on my own workbench and have a go at it, it's repairable. Nobody's rights are being violated, and Apple doesn't give a crap about whatever comes out of the ensuing hacking exercise. It's my problem to deal with the consequences, not Apple's, and it was no longer Apple's concern once they declared the thing obsolete. I'd expect exactly the same response from Dell, HP, and Bob's Bowling Buddy computer maker or any product maker that does not offer a "full unlimited lifetime warranty" on their product. I'd even expect they same from those who claim "lifetime warranty" but include that little word "limited" to give them an out when they decide they are no longer liable in any way.
    edited July 1 tmayRonkelwatto_cobra
  • Reply 10 of 18
    flydogflydog Posts: 973member
    sflocal said:
    sdw2001 said:
    I take it my mid 2015 MBP (purchased 2016) will be on the list very soon 
    And even if it were, will it suddenly stop working?  
    People have no idea what it means, but they complain anyway. 
    Ronkelwatto_cobra
  • Reply 11 of 18
    flydogflydog Posts: 973member
    MplsP said:
    "Obsolete" products, on the other hand, are those that have been discontinued for more than seven years. Obsolete products are not able to receive hardware service from Apple technicians or Authorized Service Providers, with "no exceptions."
    This is another argument for right to repair laws. 

    I agree....
    While I support Apple's walled garden approach to hardware repairs, I also think that Apple should not use that to cut users off from obtaining (or performing) the support they need in a planned obsolescence approach.

    Your absurd post is based on the incorrect and illogical conclusion that Apple forbids repairing obsolete products.  In fact, Apple has no such policy for any product, current, vintage, or obsolete. 

    dewmetmayRonkeluraharaRayz2016watto_cobra
  • Reply 12 of 18
    sflocal said:
    sdw2001 said:
    I take it my mid 2015 MBP (purchased 2016) will be on the list very soon 
    And even if it were, will it suddenly stop working?  
    Some programs may refuse to download because it is not supported. 
  • Reply 13 of 18
    MplsPMplsP Posts: 3,152member
    flydog said:
    MplsP said:
    "Obsolete" products, on the other hand, are those that have been discontinued for more than seven years. Obsolete products are not able to receive hardware service from Apple technicians or Authorized Service Providers, with "no exceptions."
    This is another argument for right to repair laws. 

    I agree....
    While I support Apple's walled garden approach to hardware repairs, I also think that Apple should not use that to cut users off from obtaining (or performing) the support they need in a planned obsolescence approach.

    Your absurd post is based on the incorrect and illogical conclusion that Apple forbids repairing obsolete products.  In fact, Apple has no such policy for any product, current, vintage, or obsolete. 

    "Obsolete" products, on the other hand, are those that have been discontinued for more than seven years. Obsolete products are not able to receive hardware service from Apple technicians or Authorized Service Providers, with "no exceptions."
    It would appear to be a very logical conclusion since it’s explicitly stated in the article. Care to revise your absurd post?
    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 14 of 18
    MplsPMplsP Posts: 3,152member
    dewme said:
    MplsP said:
    "Obsolete" products, on the other hand, are those that have been discontinued for more than seven years. Obsolete products are not able to receive hardware service from Apple technicians or Authorized Service Providers, with "no exceptions."
    This is another argument for right to repair laws. 

    I agree....
    While I support Apple's walled garden approach to hardware repairs, I also think that Apple should not use that to cut users off from obtaining (or performing) the support they need in a planned obsolescence approach.

    Part of the problem may be that this is an outdated policy:   Not very long ago, 7 years was ancient for a computer.   Today, 7 year old computers can and do run well and serve the needs of their users very well.  The Thinkpad I'm typing this on was originally made in 2012 (8 years ago).  It sports 16Gb memory and a 256Gb SSD along with an i7 processor and a 1 Gb GPU.   I runs just as well as my friend's brand new Lenovo Ideapad and far better than the brand new Dell my grandson's school loaned to him in 2020.  To scrap my Thinkpad for a minor, fixable problem would be foolish.  But, if Lenovo blocked me from fixing it I would be pissed -- fortunately parts for it are easily obtained and Lenovo provides detailed descriptions on how to remove the old and install the new -- all the way down to the motherboard.

    Apple can't have it both ways:  Restrict repairs (and parts) to themselves, then force users to scrap highly functional systems because even minor problems can't be repaired.

    Trying to get my head wrapped around this with respect to "right to repair" arguments ...

    Are you saying that Apple refusing to service a product declared as "obsolete" within their own service network (in house and authorized providers, i.e., in-network) is somehow keeping owners of these products from getting repairs performed on their products anywhere?

    Products declared as obsolete, vintage, or whatever can still be repaired, out-of-network by anyone willing to take on the job, but Apple isn't going to assume any liability whatsoever for guaranteeing the quality of the repair or functionality of the product when repairs are performed out-of-network, even when no in-network repair option is available. This is no different than any other product, regardless of "right to repair." I can bring a 1974 Oldsmobile, which can be rightfully repaired anywhere, even in my garage, to the corner garage for a transmission repair. If the tranny blows up in a week, it's between me and the garage to figure out what happens next. The original manufacturer, GM, is no longer in the loop at all.

    There's a big difference between "right to repair" and "design for serviceability/repairability." The former one, right to repair, is something that can be resolved through the establishment of authorized service and repair networks, certification processes, etc. It can also be time and model/version limited. The latter, design for serviceability/repairability, is going to be brutally difficult to force on any product maker in any industry and for any product. It's a product quality attribute that defines the marketability and differentiation of every product ever made.

    Why pick on smartphones and computers? Should toasters be serviceable? Should TV remotes be serviceable? Should Sleep Number beds be serviceable? Flame throwers? Big screen TVs? Toys?

    Who gets to decide what constitutes "proper" serviceability/repairability on every product designed, updated, or redesigned? Are we back to forcing big round headlights on every automobile and vehicle on the road? Maybe smartphones should be required use D-cell batteries?

    As long as I can bring my obsolete broken MacBook to anyone who's willing to try to fix it, or filet it on my own workbench and have a go at it, it's repairable. Nobody's rights are being violated, and Apple doesn't give a crap about whatever comes out of the ensuing hacking exercise. It's my problem to deal with the consequences, not Apple's, and it was no longer Apple's concern once they declared the thing obsolete. I'd expect exactly the same response from Dell, HP, and Bob's Bowling Buddy computer maker or any product maker that does not offer a "full unlimited lifetime warranty" on their product. I'd even expect they same from those who claim "lifetime warranty" but include that little word "limited" to give them an out when they decide they are no longer liable in any way.
    The problem is, if you can’t get parts, you can’t fix it anywhere. 

    Apple forbids authorized service centers from fixing the devices and makes it so unauthorized centers can’t. That’s why a right to repair law comes in, and Apple’s liability is a non issue. They never have had any liability for repairs made by unauthorized service centers. 

    As far as serviceability goes, Apple touts its environmental initiatives, but the single biggest impact occurs with the initial manufacture of a device and one of the best things they could do for the environment is to make them repairable. 
    muthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 15 of 18
    Rayz2016Rayz2016 Posts: 6,829member
    MplsP said:
    dewme said:
    MplsP said:
    "Obsolete" products, on the other hand, are those that have been discontinued for more than seven years. Obsolete products are not able to receive hardware service from Apple technicians or Authorized Service Providers, with "no exceptions."
    This is another argument for right to repair laws. 

    I agree....
    While I support Apple's walled garden approach to hardware repairs, I also think that Apple should not use that to cut users off from obtaining (or performing) the support they need in a planned obsolescence approach.

    Part of the problem may be that this is an outdated policy:   Not very long ago, 7 years was ancient for a computer.   Today, 7 year old computers can and do run well and serve the needs of their users very well.  The Thinkpad I'm typing this on was originally made in 2012 (8 years ago).  It sports 16Gb memory and a 256Gb SSD along with an i7 processor and a 1 Gb GPU.   I runs just as well as my friend's brand new Lenovo Ideapad and far better than the brand new Dell my grandson's school loaned to him in 2020.  To scrap my Thinkpad for a minor, fixable problem would be foolish.  But, if Lenovo blocked me from fixing it I would be pissed -- fortunately parts for it are easily obtained and Lenovo provides detailed descriptions on how to remove the old and install the new -- all the way down to the motherboard.

    Apple can't have it both ways:  Restrict repairs (and parts) to themselves, then force users to scrap highly functional systems because even minor problems can't be repaired.

    Trying to get my head wrapped around this with respect to "right to repair" arguments ...

    Are you saying that Apple refusing to service a product declared as "obsolete" within their own service network (in house and authorized providers, i.e., in-network) is somehow keeping owners of these products from getting repairs performed on their products anywhere?

    Products declared as obsolete, vintage, or whatever can still be repaired, out-of-network by anyone willing to take on the job, but Apple isn't going to assume any liability whatsoever for guaranteeing the quality of the repair or functionality of the product when repairs are performed out-of-network, even when no in-network repair option is available. This is no different than any other product, regardless of "right to repair." I can bring a 1974 Oldsmobile, which can be rightfully repaired anywhere, even in my garage, to the corner garage for a transmission repair. If the tranny blows up in a week, it's between me and the garage to figure out what happens next. The original manufacturer, GM, is no longer in the loop at all.

    There's a big difference between "right to repair" and "design for serviceability/repairability." The former one, right to repair, is something that can be resolved through the establishment of authorized service and repair networks, certification processes, etc. It can also be time and model/version limited. The latter, design for serviceability/repairability, is going to be brutally difficult to force on any product maker in any industry and for any product. It's a product quality attribute that defines the marketability and differentiation of every product ever made.

    Why pick on smartphones and computers? Should toasters be serviceable? Should TV remotes be serviceable? Should Sleep Number beds be serviceable? Flame throwers? Big screen TVs? Toys?

    Who gets to decide what constitutes "proper" serviceability/repairability on every product designed, updated, or redesigned? Are we back to forcing big round headlights on every automobile and vehicle on the road? Maybe smartphones should be required use D-cell batteries?

    As long as I can bring my obsolete broken MacBook to anyone who's willing to try to fix it, or filet it on my own workbench and have a go at it, it's repairable. Nobody's rights are being violated, and Apple doesn't give a crap about whatever comes out of the ensuing hacking exercise. It's my problem to deal with the consequences, not Apple's, and it was no longer Apple's concern once they declared the thing obsolete. I'd expect exactly the same response from Dell, HP, and Bob's Bowling Buddy computer maker or any product maker that does not offer a "full unlimited lifetime warranty" on their product. I'd even expect they same from those who claim "lifetime warranty" but include that little word "limited" to give them an out when they decide they are no longer liable in any way.
    The problem is, if you can’t get parts, you can’t fix it anywhere. 

    Apple forbids authorized service centers from fixing the devices and makes it so unauthorized centers can’t. That’s why a right to repair law comes in, and Apple’s liability is a non issue. They never have had any liability for repairs made by unauthorized service centers. 

    As far as serviceability goes, Apple touts its environmental initiatives, but the single biggest impact occurs with the initial manufacture of a device and one of the best things they could do for the environment is to make them repairable. 
    How does Apple stop unauthorised centres from making repairs?
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 16 of 18
    MplsPMplsP Posts: 3,152member
    Rayz2016 said:
    MplsP said:
    dewme said:
    MplsP said:
    "Obsolete" products, on the other hand, are those that have been discontinued for more than seven years. Obsolete products are not able to receive hardware service from Apple technicians or Authorized Service Providers, with "no exceptions."
    This is another argument for right to repair laws. 

    I agree....
    While I support Apple's walled garden approach to hardware repairs, I also think that Apple should not use that to cut users off from obtaining (or performing) the support they need in a planned obsolescence approach.

    Part of the problem may be that this is an outdated policy:   Not very long ago, 7 years was ancient for a computer.   Today, 7 year old computers can and do run well and serve the needs of their users very well.  The Thinkpad I'm typing this on was originally made in 2012 (8 years ago).  It sports 16Gb memory and a 256Gb SSD along with an i7 processor and a 1 Gb GPU.   I runs just as well as my friend's brand new Lenovo Ideapad and far better than the brand new Dell my grandson's school loaned to him in 2020.  To scrap my Thinkpad for a minor, fixable problem would be foolish.  But, if Lenovo blocked me from fixing it I would be pissed -- fortunately parts for it are easily obtained and Lenovo provides detailed descriptions on how to remove the old and install the new -- all the way down to the motherboard.

    Apple can't have it both ways:  Restrict repairs (and parts) to themselves, then force users to scrap highly functional systems because even minor problems can't be repaired.

    Trying to get my head wrapped around this with respect to "right to repair" arguments ...

    Are you saying that Apple refusing to service a product declared as "obsolete" within their own service network (in house and authorized providers, i.e., in-network) is somehow keeping owners of these products from getting repairs performed on their products anywhere?

    Products declared as obsolete, vintage, or whatever can still be repaired, out-of-network by anyone willing to take on the job, but Apple isn't going to assume any liability whatsoever for guaranteeing the quality of the repair or functionality of the product when repairs are performed out-of-network, even when no in-network repair option is available. This is no different than any other product, regardless of "right to repair." I can bring a 1974 Oldsmobile, which can be rightfully repaired anywhere, even in my garage, to the corner garage for a transmission repair. If the tranny blows up in a week, it's between me and the garage to figure out what happens next. The original manufacturer, GM, is no longer in the loop at all.

    There's a big difference between "right to repair" and "design for serviceability/repairability." The former one, right to repair, is something that can be resolved through the establishment of authorized service and repair networks, certification processes, etc. It can also be time and model/version limited. The latter, design for serviceability/repairability, is going to be brutally difficult to force on any product maker in any industry and for any product. It's a product quality attribute that defines the marketability and differentiation of every product ever made.

    Why pick on smartphones and computers? Should toasters be serviceable? Should TV remotes be serviceable? Should Sleep Number beds be serviceable? Flame throwers? Big screen TVs? Toys?

    Who gets to decide what constitutes "proper" serviceability/repairability on every product designed, updated, or redesigned? Are we back to forcing big round headlights on every automobile and vehicle on the road? Maybe smartphones should be required use D-cell batteries?

    As long as I can bring my obsolete broken MacBook to anyone who's willing to try to fix it, or filet it on my own workbench and have a go at it, it's repairable. Nobody's rights are being violated, and Apple doesn't give a crap about whatever comes out of the ensuing hacking exercise. It's my problem to deal with the consequences, not Apple's, and it was no longer Apple's concern once they declared the thing obsolete. I'd expect exactly the same response from Dell, HP, and Bob's Bowling Buddy computer maker or any product maker that does not offer a "full unlimited lifetime warranty" on their product. I'd even expect they same from those who claim "lifetime warranty" but include that little word "limited" to give them an out when they decide they are no longer liable in any way.
    The problem is, if you can’t get parts, you can’t fix it anywhere. 

    Apple forbids authorized service centers from fixing the devices and makes it so unauthorized centers can’t. That’s why a right to repair law comes in, and Apple’s liability is a non issue. They never have had any liability for repairs made by unauthorized service centers. 

    As far as serviceability goes, Apple touts its environmental initiatives, but the single biggest impact occurs with the initial manufacture of a device and one of the best things they could do for the environment is to make them repairable. 
    How does Apple stop unauthorised centres from making repairs?
    By limiting access to parts and repair documentation. That's exactly what 'right to repair' laws are about.

    If authorized repair centers aren't allowed to repair old devices, and unauthorized centers aren't allowed access to parts or the documentation, it essentially means an older device can't be repaired.
    CloudTalkinmuthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 17 of 18
    sflocal said:
    sdw2001 said:
    I take it my mid 2015 MBP (purchased 2016) will be on the list very soon 
    And even if it were, will it suddenly stop working?  
    Not for a while yet. That machine was sold until July 2018 so the clock starts from then. 

    Well … yeah it might stop working! That’s the whole point. If it does you’re knackered if your machine is on the list. So one small thing may kill it off. 

    I hated the MacBook with a passion. Complete POS machine. Shot when it was made and worse now. So thoroughly terrible I’m still surprised they made it. Throw them all into the blender in the sky. 

    I know some people love them and that’s what makes the world great. 
  • Reply 18 of 18
    Admittedly I have the m5 2016 but I love mine and wish apple would release an updated m1 version. I think that would cut into iPad Pro 11 sales though. I’ve got plenty of work done on mine and even run VMware on it. There is still nothing else I’ve seen in the market to replace it on the 11 inch MacBook Air (wish I’d have bought the 8GB model as I’d still have that now). I often used the MacBook and iPad Pro 12.9 with duet for an on the go dual screen setup that used the same space in a bag as most laptops on their own. 
    watto_cobra
Sign In or Register to comment.