Well, given I also weighed in on this:
I find the 5e DMG to be poorly constructed for the purpose of actually helping people who don't know how to run the game learn to do so. It is instead written for people who already know more or less how D&D works and who just want alternative options (that they can then, in most cases, ignore...but that's a separate issue).
Like, to give an example of something spread across both the PHB and the DMG, the way the game handles deities and races (and to a lesser extent classes). Instead of presenting these things as tools for campaign construction, traditionalism is put on a pedestal and brief lip service (at best) is given to the ways these things could be used to do creative work. E.g., it makes prescriptive statements about what things exist in fantasy worlds, rather than discussing the ways that each DM can set a tone and a theme by curating lists with intent. E.g., "A setting that evokes ancient Greek and Roman myth can be reinforced by careful selection of races. Perhaps there are no elves or tieflings or dwarves, but dragonborn (based on myths like Erichthonius, the Spartoi, and the drakaina), thri-kreen (Myrmidons, the ant-warriors), satyrs, and minotaurs are common. Likewise, there might be no Wizards nor Paladins, but Storm Sorcerers are common because of Zeus, and Warlocks who make pacts with the Chthonic gods are known (and somewhat feared). Clerics might worship a specific deity which grants one of two domains, e.g. Athena grants War or Knowledge, Zeus Storm or Light, Demeter Life or Nature, and Hermes Trickery or Life. Bards might be focused much more on philosophy and oratory than on history and music." Similarly, giving advice for how to be effective with things like "build the setting around what the players choose" or "organically expand the setting as you go, deciding limits through play rather than in advance."