Quote - In either case, I'm not going down the rabbit hole of feature-countings, because it's obvious that some folks want it packed, and damn the consequences.

I'm not convinced there are consequences, certainly none that make the program harder to use for a beginner.  Cloth and set-up, for example, have their own rooms, so if you aren't ready to use those, the tools aren't presented to you if you stay out of them.  Things like mutiple undo/redo and multithreaded rendering don't require presets (unless you count a "checkbox" as a preset) and I'd wager most people do use them and would be asking for them today had they never been implemented...

Maybe, because I entertained the idea of a basic paint tool, you think I want every feature including the kitchen sink to be added.  I don't.  I don't think Poser needs general purpose modeling tools or video editing, for example.  Soft-bodies seem to me a very standard function in a figure posing and animation tool, so I will be requesting that feature until it is added.  If you aren't to the level where that function would benefit you, then I can only hope it is never in your way.  Lack of soft bodies is limiting other users too, as I'm certainly not the only one asking for it.

What frustrates me about these discussions is that I never once said we don't need more (and better) figures.  I merely said that I hadn't seen unneccesary features being added to Poser in particular, and that better figures would not address my particular needs, while IK/FK blending and soft bodies (or a spring solver) actually would.  When Pixologic announced that zBrush would be getting animation features, there were similar complaints from users that it was unecessary, a waste of development resources, that it would clutter the program unnecessarily, etc.  These were the users who were using zBrush to sculpt and model figures for animation, which was never zBrush's purpose to begin with.  They felt that they were the majority and all development should be focused on their needs alone.  It didn't matter to them that the tools they use hadn't always been there, and Pixologic wanting to broaden their program's appeal is their right as it is their business. 

By all means, be vocal about what you would like to see added to Poser (though it seems as if many here would have indeed been fine to stop upgrading at version 6), but when you criticize a feature you don't use, or dispute the need for a feature another user requests, you are potentially affecting other paying customers.  I wouldn't want SM to stop developing better figures, why then would you want them to stop improving the actual program?

On the subject of experience bias, I was contacted last year and told I should talk to a group of researchers working for a government agency in my town.  A short time later I was under contract to produce a Poser scene and a significant number of accompanying poses.  I worked on this steadily for several months, and am only now finishing the project (at gov't speed).  I used the P4 Casual Male figure as a base, and modeled all but one of the props myself.  I have no doubt that there are many others like me who use Poser in research, academia, and other fields and who are more concerned about the core functions of the program than which figure has the most items in her wardrobe.  Maybe we are a minority, but we pay for the program too.

Quote - The main problem still hasn't disappeared, though: The majority of the Poser-using market is heavily reliant on a 6-year-old mesh that Smith Micro doesn't have any influence or control over.

That is a wholly valid concern, but without knowing SM's business model for Poser I don't know whether it puts them in a dangerous position or not.  I'd have to know if content sales are being used to sell Poser at a loss such as Daz do.