Table says it all:
| Coolpix A | Fujifilm X100S | Canon EOS M |
| 16mp DX sensor | 16mp APS sensor | 18mp APS sensor |
| no viewfinder | full hybrid viewfinder | no viewfinder |
| 28mm f/2.8 | 35mm f/2 | 35mm f/2 (interchangeable) | 230 images
| 330 images | 230 images | |
| US$1100 | US$1300 | US$800 (+US$100 discount) |
And there's Nikon's problem in a nutshell: if you really want a fixed-lens compact, for US$200 you can get a faster lens, more images per charge, and be able to look through either an optical viewfinder or EVF while photographing. For US$400 less (currently), you can get more megapixels, a faster lens, and be able to interchange to other lenses. The primary thing that column A gives you over column B and C is a smaller size, but not small enough to match the Sony RX-100.
So the question is simple: what does the Nikon A provide that no other camera doesn't? If it isn't unique in some sense, then you have to do comparison tables like the above, which are going to be hard to win. Who knows, perhaps it has superb image quality and usability going for it. Or maybe Ashton Kutcher can make it cool. We'll see soon enough.