That may be fine for you, but I still see many people needing an optical drive to burn things on the road. Not everyone has a flash drive!

I would love an ultraportable to replace my 12" G4 (which seems to be getting heavier everyday), but an external optical drive will just add more weight, wire tangles, and clutter to a (supposedly) portable setup.
The only times I have ever used on my 2xMacBooks since May 2006 I can count on one hand: two Tiger installs, one WWDC Leopard seed because I was stuck in SF with only one computer, one Leopard GM install. I didn't have to even use the drives for any of them, or an external one would have sufficed. This is why I hate the idea that my MacBook even has an optical drive - I never use it, it's a waste of power, it's a waste of space, it's a waste of money, I'd even go as far as to say it was a waste of R&D money squeezing it in

...if I wanted one, I would buy an external one..like, say..this one:
http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16827106093
It's tiny, it's inexpensive, and it's bus powered. One slim device, one simple cable. Still too impossible? Or does Apple have to bend over backwards putting in an optical drive in an ultraportable to satisfy what is probably only a miniscule number of people who can't get a larger laptop (like the MacBook) or can't carry around this tiny external burner with one cable. I mean I bet the power adapter for the ultraportable would rival the dvd burner in size and weight.
None had flash drives, and I was NOT going to give mine to them.
I have a bunch of old flash drives I don't need anymore because they've been replaced with larger and better.... so I keep a couple of them in my purse all the time so I can give them away when I have to. On the flip side, CDs don't really keep well in my purse. 1gb for <$7 is fairly cheap, all the better that it's reusable, more durable, and convenient.
To top that off, I have a couple flash drives on my keychain (which is more drives and dongles than keys) that have been amazingly useful..for everything from impromptu fixing of friends computers with random portable applications and portable operating systems to copying files over. Can't keep a CD on a keychain..
It's obvious people who argue to do away with the optical drive are filthy rich and can afford to give away hundreds of flash drives to everyone. They may be cheap for one, but add up over time. Working class people like me (and other pro-optical drive people too I guess?) simply can't afford the anti-optical drive people's ideology that everyone has a flash drive. I hope

takes note of this.
It's cause they're not the favored method of file transfer anymore. In an ultraportable, it is almost illogical because no matter what Apple does, they can't make the stupid thing take up absolutely no space. It HAS to take up space, and space is of the utmost importance. Even if it's a slim tiny ridiculous optical drive, that TINY space could have been room for something more useful. There is no way on earth you could convince anyone otherwise. Period.
I don't debate the occasional usefulness of CDs. And in your situation, sounds like there isn't much else that would work as well. But you're just making flimsy excuses as to why an optical drive should be in an ultraportable when it sounds like there are ways that would satisfy your problem without angering the majority of people who probably do not want one
built-in.
...Me and I'm sure many with me just need a slightly smaller computer then the current Macbook but WITH a optical drive.
Now, it's a completely different debate if you want an optical drive in a pro laptop smaller than the MacBook but not one that would fall into an ultraportable category, something along the lines of a new version of the 12" PowerBook. I frankly love my MacBook and can't think of why the heck I would shell out even MORE money to get something like a 12" MBP for "portability" (vs. the 15/17") when the stupid thing dents like crazy and gives me not much more of a benefit specs-wise (and take it with my opinion that anything that needs a better gfx card than what's in the MB is something that would be more convenient on a larger display, reasoning might make more sense)...but whatever floats your boat.
Really? You think that Apple will use processors that are much slower than a Macbook?
Do you need to edit videos on an ultraportable? Why do you care what apple chooses to use should they come out with an ultraportable given that there's only a tiny handful of possible processors it could be and that performance is most likely not of the utmost importance?
I remember hearing that Penryn will feature a 25W model alongside the other 35W models.
The current merom ULV processors...10W. I actually can't think of a single intel-based ultraportable currently on sale (e.g. the asus eee pc) that doesn't use a ULV processor. The iPhone and devices like the OLPC's XO laptop use embedded processors with even more outrageously-low-in-comparison numbers e.g. ~1W for the processor in the XO laptop. So that number is actually sorta ridiculous, unless, like I mentioned above, this is for something more like the 12" PB and not an actual ultraportable.