A brand-new 2015 206B (if there was such a thing) could be fitted with the G-1000. Big deal.
So could a lot of aircraft, but they don't. Perhaps Bell should have called it 'State of the Art' as AW does for the A119 and that would alleviate some of the angst? The fact is no aircraft in this category has an integrated flight deck solution that is capable of SVS, HTAWS, TCAS/ADS-B, XM WX, and all COMM/NAV on two large format displays as baseline equipment. Neither do many more expensive airframes. We can argue the semantics of whether its advanced technology or state of art or not. The fact is at the proposed price point it's a pretty good offering of equipment.
It seems on the one hand you're arguing that there is no new technology in the 505 "It's actually 53 year-old technology" but the two areas where it is ahead of its competitor level aircraft and some in the next tier up you say big deal to or you argue for, in the case of the hydro-mechanical setup, 53 year old technology stating that the new technology more "modernization, complication and expense".
People involved in a project generally take it very seriously and *very* personally
Could it also be that you're letting what appears to be a personal dislike for Bell affect your view of the 505?
I would also suggest that just because something is wider doesn't necessarily mean it can't be faster. Drag has many sources besides width and the 206B had it's fair share. A large factor on the 206B (thus the whole series to include 407) is the angle where the nose meets the wind screen (thus the 505s elongated, and yes ugly yet streamlined nose). In fact looking at pictures of the two I would wager that the 206B has more flat plate drag then the 505 as it is now. If Bell has to add structure as you imply then I would expect the drag count to increase and that comment will change.
My question is this, for an aircraft targeted at $1M and designed to compete with an R-66 and EC120 what exactly were people expecting?