This is hardly original, Nadal's game has been well-analysed for ages now. However, this is also why a lot of (most?) people prefer Federer to him: because Roger's game is more original and creative. It's a bit like Toyota vs Tesla: one will always sell more cars and make more money because it executes better, but that's not always the point.
Highly disagree with your analysis of why most people prefer Federer to him. Most people prefer Federer because Fed was successful first, then Nadal. So, people were used to seeing Federer dominate and then Nadal came in. Nadal is far from a clay court specialist. 2x Wimbledon champ, 5x finalist. 3 US open titles, 1 Aussie open title and 4x finalist. Your metaphor of car manufacturers really doesn’t do Nadal justice.…
If you take clay stats out of Nadal’s career, he’d go from being an all time great, to simply a very good player. His unrivalled dominance on clay is the defining element of his career.
Federer on the other hand has a much more well rounded career. He had more titles, more grand slams, and was dominant on both grass and hard courts. His clay stats are underwhelming, but it’s hard to tell if that’s because he’s not great on clay, or whether he was just unfortunate enough to be active at the same time as the greatest clay court player in history.