Remember when, until a generation ago, it was all about "bits"?
When the Sega Genesis came out, it was a big deal that it was 16-bit. People saw the NES as technically inferior, being 8-bit. So when the Super NES came out, it was all about the 16-bitness. I think the Turbo GrafX-16 got its number from being 16-bit, or at least pretending to be - didn't it really have two 8-bit processors?
I admit to not knowing much about what is being referred to here (the bus? some sort of cache? I dunno) but most people seem to see this as a doubling of power per generation, whether or not it's entirely true. If that's how they see it, what's so wrong with the doubling or tripling "power" of the Revolution over the GameCube? You're getting an expected jump or even better!
Sure, the next-gen Xboxes and PlayStations claim to be multiple times "more powerful" than its predecessor. Didn't someone say the PS3 was 35 times more powerful than the PS2? If you think about it, 32 times is already twice to the power of five - and 35 or whatever is even more - so shouldn't that kind of power be reserved for at least five generations later, like the PS7? And while the graphics are better on the PS3, can you really say it's 35 times better? How do you quantify that?
Anyway, we had the 8-bit ones, the 16-bit ones, then 32 and 64. Everyone knows the PSX did better than initally predicted, triumphing over the N64. If not for the FMV sequences, anybody should be able to visually tell that the PSX was inferior to the N64 even without knowing that they were 32- and 64-bit.
It's not about power. The PSX and PS2 were inferior, technically, to their competition. And yet Sony is the market leader. Not knowing what to do to maintain their hold, the simplest idea is to make the PS3 the most powerful. They're going to wow everyone with graphics.
But since we know that graphics and power aren't everything, the Revolution has a chance. It's not going to be ugly. The key here is the controller (and it's backed up by other unique things like the back-catalogue download service, and the always-exclusive Nintendo franchises). Nintendo's going to make this console inexpensive so that it continues to have high returns. They just need to dispel the belief that a lower price point means an inferior console, but I think they can do that by showing off the controller more and presenting it as separate from the soon-to-be-traditional consoles. It's true that they're going to be competing for the same dollars as Sony and Microsoft, but if the controller is all that it's cracked up to be (and if people can stop being stubborn and give it a try) then I think less graphical power than the rest is a minor concern.
Sure, we would want things to look better than the competition. And some of us would be willing to pay more for it, if only they would offer it. But hey, it's just the way Nintendo is.