Question is, is it really an advancement ? In case of Analog to DAW, there is currently a big recollection of Analog hardware, a revival, if you will. Evolution is not always on a path that leads forward. Evolution needs and has dead ends.
A question in case of VST3 should be, why isn't it already the leading technology ? It came out in 2008.
One answer would be, that there was and is already a market full with reliable, stable VST2 plugins. Their handling was and is easy. They are a bit limited. But they are working. Music is made with them for about 20 years now.

The list of improvements

is impressive, but I think, I have seen most of them in the DAW already (usable with VST2) and some are already solved by developers' virtuosity, and some of them you'll never need.
Are these improvements really an evolution, since they aren't demanded by the majority of users - who are, as I understand, primarily using VST2.

The right way for Steinberg, as the current state of reality suggests, and to prevent lying to themselves, should be the opposite:
To drop VST3 and to evolve 2.4.

 

It's simple. You stay analog, vst2 or anywhere in-between. It's your call. Nobody's gonna put a gun to your head.
What I was trying to say was Industry's gonna move on no matter what.

 

i dont see how turning my socks around helps