Well, of course, there's lots of stuff about whether it should have an EVF, or a better optical viewfinder etc.
Having had mine for a few weeks now, I've kind of settled into a new way of taking pictures - The LCD may not have enough pixels, but it has a remarkable angle of view.
I find myself holding the camera down and forwards and using the LCD for framing only - for detail, and for 'catching the moment' I'm also looking at the subject.
It's rather like using a Leica M for street, zone focusing, and then holding the camera down a little and shooting - only in this case you have a big advantage with the ability to frame the shot on the lcd at the same time added to the extra DOF of the 4/3 sensor.
Fiddling about with a tiltable LCD wouldn't be that much of an advantage - I've always found it to slow me down, and also make it rather obvious.
It allows one to be involved with the subject and the camera in a way which an EVF simply doesn't (I still always feel like I'm looking at history). This makes for better candid shots, and for those who like street photography, a whole new vista opens up.
For nature stuff, it's also great - you can hold it up/down whatever, and the great angle of view means that you can very quickly frame a shot and grab it (this time using autofocus).
I was expecting to be adding optical viewfinders . . . but I shan't bother.
Of course, you could say 'but that IS just like a point and shoot'. But there are three BIG differences:
1. the angle of view of the LCD (which CAN be seen in bright sunlight)
2. the configurability and ability to use lots of lenses with IS
3. the Image quality, which is much close to an APS