Do sub-80mm astro scopes make any sense?

There has been alot of talk about the
William Optics 66mm refractor coming out.
It's price is low, around $300, build quality
no doubt high, it's some kind of ED (I won't
say semi-apo, since no one has reached any
kind of agreement on the use of that term)
and portable. But do these sized scopes
make any sense for astronomy? Probably not;
There are very few rational arguments for owing
a 66mm scope instead of an 80mm scope. It is
more portably, but how can anyone possibly
consider a short 80mm (William Optics again,
perhaps?) not to be portable enough so that they'd
need a 66mm with is reduced performance?
If you take small 80mm, it will function on a medium
weight camera tripod. The best rig for sheer portability
would probably be a TeleVue Telepod head and a light
tripod. How can anyone not be able to call that
portable, such that they'd need a 66mm.
I'll be the first to admit the attraction is probably
"cuteness." Same thing that would attract someone to
a impossibly cute 60mm Tak FS-60C or the diminutive
Borg 50mm ED. I'll leave out
TeleVue's 60mm because it doesn't look cute, instead it looks too much
like an older Bausch and Lomb Elite 60mm, a marginal spotting scope.
So, is there any major benefit to getting the 66mm instead of
an 80mm? Not in my opinion.
But maybe a 70mm f5 ED, which would be about 9" long with a 1-1/4"
diagonal!!!! Oh wait; The 66mm is so close...
I think I'll get one!
-Rich

Refractors, yes.

Reflectors, no.