I do not know why people are questioning this,.
Bob, you are reliant on your cameras to deliver the goods not only to your expectations, but to those of the clients that pay you. Very very few folk on this site are in a similar position, and the fact is that "IQ" is really only of significance to the larger market for it's own sake.
My post about facebook and flickr was somewhat facetious, but the fact remains that remarkably few people print their photographs, and even fewer at a size where the pixel count will ever be noticeable. Accordingly, the marginal gain of such a beast as this camera (or any of the MF digital backs) is vanishingly small over that of a "full frame" or APS-C or, frankly, a 1" sensor, when the resultant images will only ever be viewed on screens, and at very low resolutions.
However, owning a camera isn't always just about the chimera of "IQ", but maybe also about having something you want and perhaps feeling good that you have the "best". (That's fine, of course)
One question is whether the average "mirrorless" camera user (if there is such a thing) sees this as a particularly desirable thing to own, and although the sample in this thread is rather tiny, I would not be surprised to learn it's quite representative of a general feeling of "meh".
For a professional landscape and/or travel photographer, however, I could also see it begging to be bought ...