It isn't an argument from popularity. It is an argument from economic reality. It is an argument from statistics.The argument from popularity continues to not impress me.
We are talking about a product of a business. The things in the game should match the target audience, and do well for the business that creates it. When you are looking at what seems to be the largest economic success in gaming in decades, making it better would be hard. And it just happens that your pet peeves would be the things that would do that? Isn't that... rather unlikely, statistically speaking?
The quality of a game design element does not stand separate from the players it serves. It may be the elements and design you want are awesome... in the right product. And that product may not be D&D.
Have you considered the idea that D&D is not the game to "accomplish more" with? That D&D ought to be, and for the health of our hobby really needs to be, a sort of good, solid, but bog standard game, and that "accomplishing more" is for games focused on other, smaller niches of gaming desire?And I also think even some of the most interesting aspects of the play test were kept in an undeveloped form instead of used as a direction to accomplish more with.
D&D is a game accessible to pretty much everyone in the market. It is not the best at most things, but it may be the best collection of second-best parts we are likely to get.