Aren't people overracting a bit?
We already knew the amount of ram and the number of chips. Most people were expecting GDDR3, but DDR3 makes sense considering how much nintendo hates latency (I still can't find any solid numbers on GDDR3 latencies, except that it's higher). DDR3 isn't some ancient cheap tech, it's newer than GDDR3 and it's what used in all modern desktops; DDR4 is hardly on the market yet. It's not the highest clock available but not too far behind. DDR3 should be better for CPU use, but not optimal for graphics. Since it's unified they had to chose one or the other, and there's still the EDRAM for the most bandwidth heavy tasks.
Also I may be way off with this, but isn't pretty much the only way to increase the bus size for DDR3 to increase the number of chips? But in that case wouldn't you only actually see the full effect if you spread out the memory so you're reading from every chip at the same time.