Yes I'm aware it will probably use Gorilla Glass, And? . It will still break if you drop it, Gorilla Glass is not magic
As for the PS4 and Xbox being a limited PC, yep agree. And I agree, they are not innovative, they rely on power and just deliver to gaming basics. The Switch because it wasn't going to meet them power wise, was said to be innovative. Again, how is a gaming tablet innovative. It's not. The only innovative thing is possibly the removable controller which can be used by two people. But as I said, , IMO, that is more down side for the trade offs than pluses
Frankly, I thought they would go down the VR path or something. But it looks like they didn't even pack enough power for that to be an accessory option later on. Could be wrong, hopefuilly I am, because that would really suck.
Well, if you're going to throw it off of a skyscraper, Gorilla Glass probably isn't going to protect it. For day-to-day use, however, with 5 foot drops - a 1 mm of Gorilla Glass 4 (or 5 which is probably the one they're going to use) is going to protect it. If you still don't have faith in the new mobile devices' armor, I suggest having a look at the stress tests of BV6000, which can show how even low-end devices aren't as brittle as they were in the past.
I think I mentioned all the ways it was innovative, but even if we go at the very limited scope of how it compares to PS4/XB1 - it doesn't have a portable/console split. You'll be able to play one game without being tethered to a single space, which was only with handhelds. This is a console, and that's why it's good - graphics capabilities wise, it sits squarely between the XB1 and the PS4, and nVidia proprietary PhysX engine lets it do far more calculations than AMD ever will at a lower energy cost, meaning even if it is a low-powered CPU it can do far more than you expect. This isn't "just-a-tablet", this is something that can go toe-to-toe with the current-gen. I'm not talking about Project Scorpio and PS4+, which are focused on VR and 4K display.
And honestly, I'm pretty stoked they didn't go that route because VR is still very expensive ($600 min. just for the base device, without the console), it's clunky, it doesn't perform at the resolution and framerate it should be for a smooth experience, and it doesn't have any big-name GOOD games developed for it because of it. As it stands right now, it's a gimmick - a bit more developed than the Virtual Boy, but still not developed enough to justify a console with that as its main focus. We don't need another VR device that jumps the shark (HTC Vive's space limitations, Oculus Rift's framerate instabilities, PSVR's resolution cap) before that technology and the software for that technology comes to fruition. It's not about who did it first, it's about who did it well.
EDIT: Also, remember that one of the PS4's selling points was shared play between the PS Vita and the PS4, as was the Wii U. Where everyone failed (because the PSVita was a failure, and the Wii U integrated it too heavily) this might succeed, especially since you're taking the device with you and introducing no lag when it's on the go, and doesn't have limited range (such as was with the Wii U's gamepad).