You guys have gone off on tangents from the original point of this thread (which is what a thread does - I am just as guilty)
In all the talk about subjective choice of brand and bantering back and forth about the pros and cons of various bikes, there are certain "truths" that can be backed up by numbers.
In general, Japanese bikes ARE more reliable than European or American bikes. I think that the metrics back this up. Many have debated the reasons for this truism. Pardon me for not searching for reference to this, although there is that recent Consumers Reports article. So, it follows that the Super Tenere IS probably more reliable than the GS. It doesn't mean that there won't be recalls and breakdowns with the Tenere, but in general the PROBABILITY that any one particular bike will leave you stranded is less than with the GS.
BUT ... in defense of the GS, it incorporates more innovative features and that is a possible reason that it is less reliable. This last statement is highly debatable and the point of this thread. However, it seems that the two counters to this are: is the GS really less reliable and is the Tenere less innovative (earlier post of patents filed counters that Japanese are less innovative in general)?
Now if the above brand characteristics are true, which do you prefer is subjective: do you want reliability over innovativeness, or will you put up with quirks and higher breakdown probability for new innovative features. Those that prefer the latter would say that is why the GS is better. Those that say that reliability in an adventure bike should be a higher characteristic would disagree.
By the way, this is meant to be a fun debate, if you are losing sleep over it, please don't apply! We are all riders here and anything beats a cage on wheels.