There was only one complaint about lack of innovation, the rest were discussions about what was or wasn't innovative. You should ask that person why this "lack of innovation" is preventing them from getting what they want.
As to the comments about 20 year old lenses still being good enough, they aren't. With the higher pixel densities and higher resolutions affording for more cropping power, the old selection of lenses aren't always cutting it any more. This is why Sigma and others like Samyang/Rokinon have leaped forward with better resolving lenses, making Canon manufacture higher quality newer versions to keep up.
Once we got past the 4 micron pitch, there were impacts being seen by different copies of older lenses on IQ, during 100% pixel peeping, or those that crop heavily. I know some don't agree, however I have seen it personally. There are some lenses that just don't resolve enough at the pixel level any longer, despite the fact that at these sizes, 100% view is liking sticking your nose on a print. I have compared some of the MKII lenses to the older ones, and whatever they changed optically has made a difference. Whether it was in contrast, color, or detail resolution, the new results are noticeably better, with at least the 3 most discussed MKII lenses (100-400, 24-70 and 70-200 2.8).