Yes, that seems to be a pretty accurate assessment.

Thing is that for me, a Micro 4/3 camera isn't for a minute a replacement for my main DSLR, but it fills a gap that no other digital camera can do currently - effectively what a film rangefinder did, and a fairly compact one at that - think Leica CL. This week's AP review of the Ricoh GX200 shows that even the best of compacts just can't do that job properly. Now I've long argued that the 4/3 system simply can't compete head on on quality against the larger sensors, although it's capable of a very decent level of quality. Where it can beat larger sensors hands down is in enabling smaller cameras and lenses. Micro 4/3 appears to be a tacit acceptance of that, and a shifting of the battle to where Olysonic actually can win. Is it a niche? Possibly, but I suspect it's a much bigger niche than the existing 4/3 market, TBH - after all, competition isn't getting any easier in the main DSLR market.Further there should be a pretty competitive price - take out the cost of a reflex viewing system and price could be very interesting.
The big question of course is what it means for the existing 4/3 system, and I don't think there's any way of answering that right now.