"Because most of the technology wasn't available, or they used superior technology that you don't recognize as such."
this line pretty much states it's as perfect of a phone as it could be. c'mon
I get the various excuses why the technology is arguably incrementally superior. (I do recognize it as such). But to make such a blanket statement, you know it can't be true. Not every piece of technology on any phone could ever be either the best available or superior.
also, it's not about what I recognize or what you recognize. as you say what the average consumer will recognize is anyone's guess. well there's nothing much else on topic to discuss in this thread, besides football games and names for your phone, so let's guess at it. let's discuss it. it's fun and it pertains to the phone, the only thing we do know about it, which is the specs.
even you have admitted in your post that it should be 1.5 for example. And saying it doesn't have SD take it or leave it, well, that's not acknowledging a basic design limitation.
Please re-read the context of my post. The technology wasn't available when they started designing the phone. They couldn't go down and pick from the local parts bin for 1.5GHz dual core parts. They had to make selections early on in the design cycle, and then live with the results. For whatever reason, 1.2GHz was the result.
By your rational, why didn't they put quad core SOCs in them? Or run 3GHz. I'm not trying to be blunt, but you don't seem to have the concept of product design. Companies have roadmaps and marketing departments and engineering teams that discuss the future of products. They determine the features necessary, feasiblity of them being available in the timeframe, and where the competition is. Engineering is all about compromises. A Core i7 would make a pretty fast phone, for all of 1min of battery life.
I stated that I was disappointed it wasn't 1.5GHz, but I also stated that I believe they underclocked it for a reason.
As for the "average" consumer, you're going to have to admit, the average consumer doesn't look at specs and obsess over them like we do. You comment about the SD card is pointless, because 90%+ of smartphone users don't even know they have a removable card. Witness the number of iPhone users, who just plain don't care about removable storage. The SD card was never a design limitation (obviously), but is Google's choice. This is Google's phone, and you get all the good and bad that comes with it. Arguing about it now does nothing. You either live with that, or you chose another phone that meets your needs better. There were many people here in the earlier days of the thread that were regular posters that felt the GNex wasn't for them, so they moved on. No SD card was a deal breaker for them, just as the non-removable battery killed the RAZR for others.
Sure, I'd prefer if this had a 1.5GHz 4460, 8MP camera, and non-pentile display. But I'd also prefer if this had quad core 2.0GHz, 12MP camera and quad HD display, along with a battery that lasted two weeks.
I understand your argument, but it seems like you are just trying to get justification why it doesn't top every spec in a chart. The Nexus devices have never been about the latest hardware. It's hard for them to be, when as I mentioned serve dual purposes. It is a development platform for ICS, and it certainly is competitive with all current phones. Seems to be performing quite well in benchmarks (non-quadrant). Even though the hardware may not be reflected in spec sheets, performance relative to recently released phones is quite comptitive, or even better. But ICS is really the star attraction here. So much so, that some have stated they can't recommend a phone without ICS.