I see our disagreement as one of degree, not necessarily substance. Content Paradise has Poser dynamic clothing as do Rendosity and RDNA. Together they represent a not insubstantial marketplace.  Are so tied to Daz that they won't try DC (and then demand it if it meets their needs) until Daz gives it's stamp of approval? Are vendors so tied to Daz that they are ignoring a potential market? It seems that it's always something holding Poser back, users clinging to old features holding it back, Daz holding it back, vendors holding it back. Maybe if blame needs to be laid, Poser's succession of foster parents should come in for a share as well.

As I see it, the responsibility for creating interest and uptake of new Poser features lies with Poser's owners. If they had made a large quantity of free or nearly free DC content available from the beginning perhaps things might be different, but we'll never know. Daz would be foolish to have given up any substantial revenue for years in order to wait for their own product (which is still a gamble) to appear. If nothing else, the two markets (Poser and Studio) seem so distinct that they could market Poser's DC without hurting their own. Maybe they are in fact more in tune with the majority of their 'make art' customers and judged that Poser's DC was a bridge too far, so they set about creating what they felt would be a simpler (i.e. better selling) product. Mere minimally informed speculation on motive I admit but it makes more sense to me. I'm reminded of a quote by the late William F. Buckley.

"The fallacy," I said, "is the assumption that you can infer subjective intention from objective consequence: we lost China to the Communists, therefore the President of the United States and the Secretary of State wished China to go to the Communists."

Sometimes things are just destined to be.  

"Democracy is a pathetic belief in the collective wisdom of individual ignorance." - H. L. Mencken