To clarify, what I meant by "blah blah blah" was that the cycle repeats. Maybe that's how you interpreted it.
Also, I don't think you and I have very different opinions.
Studio One is the only DAW I use. Reaper was the first DAW I learned how to use. Both DAWs are exactly in that part of the cycle where innovation is marginal at best. That's good and bad for them.
I agree that Reaper, Studio One and other DAWs (and software beyond audio applications) benefit from a user base willing to stick with the same product not despite, but because of stability and familiarity (i.e., "lack" of innovation). I'd argue, however, that's where DAWs peak and users start to either migrate to other (more innovative) DAWs or stop paying for upgrades. For example, I don't plan to upgrade to S1 v6 or Reaper v6 (I paid for v5, so 6 is free for me, but I don't see why I should bother).
Finally, I want to clarify that I'm not saying users want innovation for the sake of innovation (apart from a few early adopters), they want other things such as an improved ease of use, innovative business models, 3rd-party extensions,* workflows that didn't exist before, etc.* They stick with a product until a new developer comes along with something that checks most of the boxes.
* This was innovative in its time