Now if I could just marshal spelling skills to match. And I'd really enjoy a good rant on this, but ...
In short form, if the head of any company isn't involved in a constant, coherent vision that demands better results for their idealized customer*, as Steve Jobs famously was, then each major group, each function within each group, and each individual will do whatever seems to be most rewarding to them.
The logic is as follows:
The motives for all CAD companies are warped in comparison with usual marketplaces as the cost of switching to an alternative supplier is high enough that a CAD company can produce almost nothing and retain its customer base**. The great CAD shakeout that previously occurred happened because the previously custom hardware to run the software was being outpaced by generic computers and workstations; there is no upcoming similar driver for customers to switch.
There are two ways for CAD companies to proceed. One is to try to capture new sales, but the bulk of that has already been accomplished and won't change without bankruptcy of a major player. Going after new sales causes changes to the way the software appeals to new buyers and occasional converts. The second way is to change license configurations, acquire products from other companies, repackage, remove low cost options, and try to encourage existing customers to new contracts by removing support.
Given that fixing long-term problems doesn't get new sales, and doesn't get more money from existing customers, there's no reason to expect them to be fixed. Instead one should expect to get changes that look good in marketing brochures or that increase training and upgrade sales.
I subscribe to a more holistic approach that if the companies using the software are more effective, they will be more profitable and more likely to increase in size and increase software consumption. However, most of the productivity gains in industry seem to have been spent elsewhere on the basis that the current CAD is good enough, so it's just as likely that additional draw from genuinely improved software is eliminated in board-room raises or other expenses.
By way of comparison is the open source Blender project. This has come very far in capability because the people who write it are people who use it, who depend on it to work. They are their own Steve Jobs's. The results they expect from the software drive their contributions to the software. In major CAD companies it never seems to me that the developers feel that the product they produce is something they depend on; that no one is under the gun to produce models, drawings, animations, or analyses and they happen to write software to accomplish that task. And where they are knowledgeable, there are severe limitations on getting what they know about the software out to the users.
I can't afford to buy the company. I can't change the software. The only tool available is the occasional jab. I'm convinced that people who are going the direction I'm suggesting won't be discouraged by one jerk complaining about the results the company they work for produces, that those who are going entirely another way won't be convinced by any suggestion, and that maybe a few will feel the nudge and decide to make a better product and still meet marketing and internal requirements.
*I think Steve Jobs was his own idealized customer. He depended on ego to drive products that would be good enough for him. Fortunately for Apple, his desires were very similar to those of a large number of customers. If the president or CEO of a company can't be his own best customer model, they need to have one and have every employee know that customer model and work towards making that customer as happy as possible. Damaged and failing companies make the org chart the primary customer.
**An OS is similarly difficult to escape, as can be seen in how little movement there was from Win XP in spite of improvements. Likewise the biggest competitor of any CAD company is it's own product, as the costs of upgrading, even to a compatible product, are pretty large. Lost productivity requiring retraining, files that need upgrading, new procedures to be developed, deployment costs, risks due to interruption of critical operations, and cost of new or ongoing maintenance contracts.