I couldn't bear to go through the whole thread. We used to complain about the rewind knob on the M2/M3, we used to complain about having to remove the baseplate, we used to complain about holding the Nikon F back in our teeth while running and trying to reload at the same time, we even used to complain about having to rack the Nikon lens aperture ring back and forth...not to mention the notion of holding an F-36 in our teeth....
Evidently the M8 has some serious boogers. This is normal in a new camera. Remember the early F2 Photomic finders that used to just arbitrarily pop off and fall on the ground, in the water etc?
The M8 is essentially a first attempt. Should it have been farmed out to PJs for a couple of years? Probably, but otoh the market was demanding a digital M. Consider the first M3 vs the last M3; they almost aren't the same camera, and what was the development time?
Cost? Well, I'm not astute enough to run any numbers but I'd suspect that in real money the M8 costs less work-hours than the first M3.
I don't have a horse in this race, don't want an M8, but just want to remind everyone of some history, early failures that were revised etc. The expectation of perfection because of the nameplate or price has not been supported in reality in the past; is it reasonable to expect it now? These things are nothing more than tools which work better or worse than older tools. They're not objects of deification.
That's my two cents worth, which is about all it's worth. <g>
-jbh-