1st point - Pathfinder was/is a 3.5 retroclone with some minor(ish) changes to it. Im definetly not knocking it as I love PF, but the type of playtest that WoTC is doing here is way different. They are playtesting a 100% brand new system, not a tweaked version of a 5 year old pre-existing ruleset that anyone can get for free with the SRD at any point. The PF playtest was a great idea, but they had the benefit of using a base system that basically 100% of their user base were already familiar and comfortable with. Not to mention the fact that some of the issues folks had with 3.5 were already well documented, so they really had an easy stepping off point when it came time to tweak and adjust.
2nd point - I dont think the poster was trying to say you are not customers of D&D type games, just that you are not WotC customers - you are another comapny's customer. I dont think there is any reason to get defensive about that, its certainly not an insult.
We are all D&D fans, some prefer particular editions or retroclones, but that doesnt mean anyones opinion is less valid because of edition/system preference. Seeing as WoTC's goal is to attract and retain D&D fans of all editions, the playtest is our way to make sure they stick to that, and if they still fail for anyone out there, at least you know you still have your options elsewhere. Just at least wait and see what happens with it, you wont have to buy into it or anything, so you dont have to be worried about being tricked into spending hard earned money on a system you dont care for. I imagine by the time they actually get the first retail book out the door, you'll have a pretty definitive idea as to whether or not D&D Next is for you or not.
Obviously, I understand Paizo was modifying a predefined system. They were also a much smaller company than WotC and still managed to find a way to solicit customer input effectively. The situation is still relevant. Contrast with the development of 4E where the game was effectively sprung by surprise, with very little input from the eventual customers.
I feel I understand what the original poster was saying about whether or not WotC should be taking the input of other company's customers. I'm not defensive about it. I was just pointing out what I felt was an incorrect analysis. Those of us who left are not currently WotC customers. That is true. BUT WOTC MADE THAT CHOICE with the game that they made, how they marketed it, etc. It's not incorrect for me to say that we WANT to be WotC's customers. But they have to make a game that we feel is worth spending money on. The fact that WotC has announced 5E a short 4 years after the release of 4E tells me that there's probably a truth to the idea that they lost a significant proportion of their customer base. And created probably their strongest competitor. So they have to fix the situation by getting an edition that somehow doesn't lose a large percentage of current customers, and also brings back a good number of lapsed customers. Lots of sales information (from limited sources) has seemed to indicate Pathfinder was doing a great job of catching up.
As to waiting.....absolutely.....that's entirely my plan. I just feel that if they state they're doing open playtests etc. they're not truly open if they're dependent upon flying to a convention across the country. Heck, I just talked to one of my old players who's currently playing 4E and Pathfinder (mostly Pathfinder....gave up on 4E), and he wasn't even AWARE that 5E had been announced. So we'll see how much information came out. For 3rd Ed., there were a tonne of articles in Dragon Magazine, giving a lot of information about what the game would be like.
Hopefully 5E is more in tune with what I'm interested in running/playing. But it's premature to discuss if WotC has restored people's faith. We don't know enough.