I want to point out that if I'm remembering correctly, pf2e came out shortly after that big controversy about roll 20, and that on the sub I mostly see people talking about other VTTs (probably a result of the lack of support) like Foundry (which I too use, since it has superior support for pf2e and you only buy it once) which you'll notice even in this thread, so it makes sense to me that it doesn't have much presence on roll 20. The sub poll also suggested more than half of the user-base were converts from 5e, which makes sense to me-- much of Pathfinder 1e's player base had previously converted to 5e anyway, and its the largest game.
In a very real sense, Pathfinder 2e fills a niche as a complex alternative to 5e for players introduced by 5e, something it needed its balance and relative streamlining to accomplish. We're seeing it grow in a fairly gradual way as individual tables have someone frustrated with 5e's limitations, and then convert the rest of their table, so it makes sense that its more gradual than say, 5e was-- the market its entering is different than when 5e came out, or when Pathfinder 1e came out. Instead, you have a market that's primarily playing a game that's still supported so if we compare it to a highway, rather than just merging onto the new game or taking the highway exit (which is what happened with 5e, largely) the 5e lane is still going, so groups are more gradually switching lanes than they might if books weren't coming out for it.
But overall, the game seems pretty healthy and sustainable, short of Hasbro killing 5e somehow, I don't think anyone reasonably thought truly 'dethroning' 5e was on the table-- its got all the players its introduced or brought back to the game, its got incredible brand recognition, it has critical role on-boarding even more people. But I do think that claiming a meaty chunk of 5e's audience is still on the table, and it seems like its definitely happening over time.
One preconception I see is the idea that Pathfinder 2e should even want the players it probably won't get, whereas I think that to some extent, games should have an awareness that they're functionally selecting their audience. Some people might happily declare that the problem with 2e is that there are too many options and they'd rather improvise things-- but that sounds awful to me, I want a nice well designed process to help me do things-- that process should be streamlined, but it should exist. Some people assert that the game should be easy enough that encounter balance shouldn't function (to facilitate flexibility), but again that's not what I'm looking for (I think the flexibility works fine.)
So for me, I don't think any single person having a problem with the system is actually an indictment of it, its ok for the game to not be for you, if its for others of us. Which is why I would say the problem with Taking20's statements is that they're mostly just false-- you have more than the illusion of choice, your choices literally result in greater or lesser success and differing specialties. Combat is meatier, but my group mostly fights severe encounters and extreme encounters, and rarely even risks a single death so its not as if its actually too hard (and you have many sliders to adjust that, although I notice people seem resistant to using them). Turns seem to vary a lot, although you can certainly develop routines if you like.
