The NEX competes w/ the Fuji’s XPro/XEs – APC-sized sensor, interchangeable lens mirrorless cameras. That’s a very different market than the X100s or RX1. The RX100 is a compact zoom w/o any viewfinder and a 1″ sensor. It sits somewhere between the X20 and G1X and is again, not really comparable to the X100s. That you’re lumping these completely disparate cameras together is probably the cause for some of the eye-rolling you’re sensing.
You’re free to want what you want, but by definition a removable lens RX1 would be a completely different animal (since the RX1 is all about having the best sensor mated w/ the best lens in the most compact package possible price be damned). If you wanted an MILC, you could pick up a NEX now which has a great APS sized sensor, but the only comparable lens quality-wise is the much bigger $1100 Zeiss 24mm – quality glass isn’t cheap (IMO for MILCs the m43 system has a much better glass/body selection and a more reasonable size tradeoff.)
This is part of what makes the X100 and X100s such a great deal – the Fujinon f/2 mated to the sensor is fantastic and honestly, would be worth most of the price of the camera alone. Add to that the tactile/manual controls, the amazingly silent leaf shutter and the fantastic (and Fuji-exclusive) Hybrid VF (the EVF addon for the RX1 is $450 and the separate OVF (w/o any sort of digital projection) is even more expensive at $600) all in a compact form-factor, and now the ‘s’, which fixes pretty much all of the original’s quirks… it’s certainly the cheapest “photographer’s” carry camera out today.
This may also come off as insulting, but it’s the kindest way I can put it – my recommendation for you is to just go shooting instead of trying to compare cameras by stats – there’s a whole universe of objective and subjective dimensions to judge superiority for your specific needs, but you’ll never find out or appreciate them until you actually engage in some photography.