I agree it's a definite possibility. They did it before with the iPad lineup when everyone thought they'd bring a decent chip to the table, and went with low-en

I agree it's a definite possibility. They did it before with the iPad lineup when everyone thought they'd bring a decent chip to the table, and went with low-end phone chips. Of course very good low-end chips, running highly optimized software, but still. I just don't really follow their path here. First they make the MB more expensive than the air, but run slower. They also make it lighter, smaller, thinner and quieter than the air (air having light-as-a-feather connotations). I mean, what's the deal in 2 years? If it's the lowest powered device, it'll probably be the thinnest and lightest etc, too. So what about the Air? Will they just throw that powerful brand name out of the window? Will they expect people to buy 12' and not the 13' MBA with a bigger screen, 3 hours more battery, more ports and a bunch more (20-30%) powerful yet equally less expensive? In short, it's a bit of a strange lineup. And while I agree with you that it obviously is, and may likely remain the slowest Macbook (slowest Mac period, the Mini notwithstanding), I don't necessarily see how that means ARM as opposed to continuing with refreshed Intel Ms, or hell even an updated Atom lineup. Is there any indication they want to move away from Intel again? I mean, weak performance is one thing, but this is OS X we're talking about, for a device that costs beyond $1k, which probably has good enough profit margins on an Intel M, would they really underpower it even more with a weaker chip? I'm not very familiar with CPUs though, would love some more of your thoughts on this. It's definitely true that it's now very feasible, and so it all comes down to who can deliver the best low-power CPU the next few years.