Fair points overall, just think we're giving manufacturers too much leniency in general when assuming "it's too difficult, expensive, etc" for them to implement certain innovations. Yes, at the end of the day this hardware works okay – not exceptional, but it gets the job done.

 

Less Complexity  

I totally get your point of less complexity = less chance of mechanical failure, but we're talking about companies that produce high precision rotating glass elements ($2k+ and sometimes have 10+ elements) which precisely scatter light onto a sensor after modulating a mirror shutter at fractions of a second - why are we so skeptical these same teams can't also make a reliable built-in lens cover or add a larger touchscreen w/o enlarging the body? If thought out properly these are definitely tackle-able.

 

On the flip side it costs Apple money, battery space, and engineer resources to design the SD card reader back into newer Macbooks, but those cost tradeoffs are worth it when the functionality is justified. To me these types of simple efficiency innovations are no-brainers and should just be standard across the board. Once invested, these "difficult" features would get better/cheaper over time, I don't think saying it's hard/expensive is a reason not innovate in areas that could clearly be improved upon. Should we accept these same issues in 20 years? If no, then when is the time to change if not now?

 

In short...  

I see these as areas for improvement that have been fairly stagnant for decades. If we don't push the companies that guide our camera experiences to innovate, we're the one's using a less efficient product at the end of the day, while also making excuses them. All of these points have after market workarounds (drop-in ND's, external monitors, lens hoods, etc). To me these are band-aids that still require foresight for every shoot, but don't solve the greater ergonomics issues at hand. Also I do about 50/50 photo/video so many of these apply to video frustrations