"New and Inovative" does not mean "more of the same"
The first digital cameras were 320 by 200 pixels in 16 colours. That is a laughable resolution. At the time, some of us said to wait and see, the resolution would become better than 35mm film. Who's laughing now?
Digital is not film. To treat it like film is to apply restrictions to it that need not apply. To expect that an optical viewfinder technology is the best solution for a digital camera is flawed logic. Look at the latest generation of Apple products.... the Retina display is made up of finer pixels than the eye can detect.... this technology will give you as good of a viewfinder as optical because it is the human eye that is the limiting factor..... not the optics and not the display.
The digital viewfinder has a multitude of advantages over the optical viewfinder. First, by leaving it in the same spot as the optical viewfinder we can retain a familiar form factor yet eliminate most of the mechanicals of the camera... no more shutter... longer battery life, longer camera life... and you can adjust brightness/contrast/gamma on a digital viewfinder... try that on optical!
By putting an additional digital viewfinder on the back of the camera, the 3" or so tilt/swivel/touch screen, we open up a lot of new possibilities to see the image and control the camera.
And who says that the viewfinder has to be on the cameras? Ever hear of tethered shooting? I use it a lot for astrophotography.... and it's great for bird pictures too, set the camera up near the nest and step WAY back... How long before there is a wireless interface to the camera and you can use a smart phone or tablet?
Mirrorless is the way of the future. Don't expect the first ones out to be the "best camera ever", but just watch how soon they eclipse APSC and full frame...