You need to tell that to Leica and all the other companies that are producing cameras for $20,000 or more. Do you know what resolution the Canon D1s Mk III screen is? Here's the answer: 230,000 RGB dots
So is the Canon screen not good enough? I think that is a silly statement, considering the Nikon D3x is just about the only camera with a higher resolution screen. It is a "review" screen, afterall, and that many pixels is certainly very high resolution. At a resolution of almost 768x600, that 3 inch screen gives a much finer detail image than what you can get on a computer screen. Most high-quality computer screens give about 6 times the resolution, but about 30 to 40 times the area. That makes their pixel density MUCH worse than the screen on the SD1. With a diagonal measurement of more than 6 times the SD1 screen, a 19" computer screen actually has much more than 6 times as much area to fill, but with only about 6 times as many pixels.
The fact is, even the 230,000 dot screen on the Canon 1Ds Mk III, which was heralded as a high quality screen when it came on the market, gives a more detailed view in it's 3 inch area than a similar area in even the highest quality 19" computer screens, or even the new 27" Mac screen. I'm not saying that looking at the whole computer screen does not give you such a detailed view, but if you take a similar area, then you will have a much more detailed view on the SD1 screen than you can get on a high quality computer screen.
Now does that make sense? Do we really need more than twice the quality that is on the most expensive Canon camera made?
I don't think so, and Leica didn't either. That's why when they recently introduced their S2 camera, they did NOT opt to match the existing Nikon D3x. Instead, they used a screen similar to the one on the SD1. That camera sells for more than $20,000. So please, tell me how you can say such a silly thing. What? Leica doesn't know what they're doing? That's what you're saying by making a statement like, "The 3-inch LCD has a standard resolution of 460.000 RGB dots, which isn’t acceptable for a camera in this price range."
I think that this article was written with a negative slant from the beginning. Without pointing out the fact that the camera has a superior resolution to the top Canon model and a similar resolution to the much more expensive top Leica model, you do an injustice to the SD1, and you make it look as if you are being negative from the beginning of the article. Your list of Pro: and Con: are very short, and you fail to point out that the SD1 gives the absolute best image quality in its price range and the best high-ISO noise levels in the entire range of APS-C size sensor cameras. In fact, you list the SD1 noise levels as a "Con:" - it is actually the best performer, when you consider its sensor size and resolution.
I was surprised to read, "Even though the camera has a nominal image resolution of 14.8 MP, its images really deserve Sigma’s “46 MP” label." At least you did not totally can the SD1, even though you do seem to be somewhat negative about it.
You fail to point out many more things in this article, both positive and negative. A more extensive review would have been helpful. I would like to see more photos of the camera, including what it looks like through the viewfinder, what the weather seals look like, etc.
Success is in the details, and I think this article is a failure.