What is the exact SAMD21 model on the MKR 1010?

On the MKR 1010 product page: Arduino MKR WiFi 1010 | Arduino Official Store
The specific model of the microcontroller is missing as it only states: "SAMD21 Cortex-M0+ 32bit Low Power ARM MCU".
But on the Nano 33 IoT product page: Arduino Nano 33 IoT | Arduino Official Store
Under the 'Tech Specs' tab, it is clearly mentioned: "This board is based on the SAMD21G18A microcontroller".
Is that the exact same chip also on the MKR 1010?

Yes. The MKR WiFi 1010 uses the SAMD21G18A.

It's a pet peeve of mine when the sellers of microcontroller boards don't clearly state the exact microcontroller model in their product description. For me, it seems like that would be the most obvious detail to include. However, I haven't noticed that information missing on the product pages of other Arduino boards so I think it was purely an oversight that it was missing from the MKR WiFi 1010 product page. Usually they have the microcontroller model with a link to the datasheet as a standard item on the product page.

pert:
Yes. The MKR WiFi 1010 uses the SAMD21G18A.

What is your source? I searched and couldn't find any information about the specific microcontroller on the MKR 1010.

At first, i was puzzled why Arduino.cc skipped on this essential detail... I was thinking that maybe they intentionally obscured some information as there could be some fault with the MKR 1010 board.

Is there any way to report this oversight and get it fixed at some point, preferably sooner rather than later? I think the details should be very clear if they want to sell more and also not confuse their buyers. There is a way to fork the repo on GitHub and then submit edits but i think it only applies to the Arduino Reference. Maybe this feature should be available across the entire Arduino.cc site...

DryRun:
At first, i was puzzled why Arduino.cc skipped on this essential detail... I was thinking that maybe they intentionally obscured some information as there could be some fault with the MKR 1010 board.

It's not very thoroughly obscured because you can see the marking on the chip if you zoom in on the product photo and the part is marked "D21G18" on the schematic provided on the "Documentation" tab of the product page. But of course we shouldn't have to to to those lengths to get this information.

DryRun:
Is there any way to report this oversight and get it fixed at some point, preferably sooner rather than later? I think the details should be very clear if they want to sell more and also not confuse their buyers. There is a way to fork the repo on GitHub and then submit edits but i think it only applies to the Arduino Reference. Maybe this feature should be available across the entire Arduino.cc site...

You are right that you can only directly submit documentation fixes for the Language Reference content. There is no equivalent for the product pages. And I very much agree that the excellent system used for the Language Reference should be extended to all the documentation content on arduino.cc.

The procedure to report problems and suggest improvements to the documentation content other than the Arduino Language Reference is to open an issue report in the appropriate repository on GitHub. Since there is no public repository specifically for the MKR WiFi 1010 or the Arduino Store, the appropriate place to report it is in the arduino/Arduino repository. In addition to hosting the source code of the Arduino IDE, that repository is used as a catch-all issue tracker for any issues that aren't specific to one of Arduino's other repositories:

I'll be honest with you that sometimes (but not always) there are long delays before someone acts on the documentation issues reported there. I have been successful at getting many improvements made to Arduino's documentation via this system over the years, but I had to be patient. I think it's important to at least get the issues reported; then we've done all we can do and its someone else's responsibility to implement.

pert:
Since there is no public repository specifically for the MKR WiFi 1010 or the Arduino Store, the appropriate place to report it is in the arduino/Arduino repository. In addition to hosting the source code of the Arduino IDE, that repository is used as a catch-all issue tracker for any issues that aren’t specific to one of Arduino’s other repositories:
[

this works good to request store pages corections
https://store.arduino.cc/store-support

‘I moved’ the Ethernet shield from Boards to Shields this way and corrected the MKR ETH shield compatibility information (Mega and Uno were listed as compatible)

As a volunteer, I have a policy where if I have to report a bug via a private channel, I won't bother (unless the bug is directly affecting me). The reason is that I don't know if 500 people before me already reported the same bug. I have better things to do with my time than submit duplicate bug reports. The only sane approach is to use a public issue tracker so that everyone can view the existing issue reports and track the progress.

I think that many companies don't realize that the philosophy of open source can apply to so much more than just copy pasting the right license into your source code.

That said, as someone who works with the Arduino Store support team, I do know that they have the inside track to the people who can edit this content. Support tickets submitted by customers into that system have a fairly high priority. The GitHub issue tracker is most closely monitored by Arduino's development team, but the development team don't have the ability to change the website content. I think this situation could be improved by Arduino creating dedicated issue trackers for the website content, rather than piling everything together in one issue tracker. That way, the web content issue trackers could be specifically monitored by the people assigned to that task, who might otherwise get overwhelmed by huge amount of activity that occurs in the arduino/Arduino issue tracker, much of which is not relevant to them.

So if something targets the Nano 33 IoT, it should load on the MKR1010 WiFi as well, right? Since they are the same chips.

That's correct. They use the same primary microcontroller as well as the same NINA-W102 WiFi module so most programs written for one will work on the other.

Other than the form factor, the primary difference between them is the MKR WiFi 1010 has a LiPo battery charger while the Nano 33 IoT has an LSM6DS3 IMU. They do use different crypto chips (ATECC508 vs ATECC608A), but that shouldn't matter unless you're working with the chip directly, rather than through the networking libraries that support either.

Awesome, Thank you