Another thing I have realized is that, as someone mentioned a few days ago, they don't have a mad scientist or crazy Swede making them stuff anymore. As far as I can tell Josh is there only current airframe designer (please tell me if I'm wrong).
No shade at all to those who have designed for FT, but in honesty, how many of the FT designs not created by David or Peter were truly from-the-drawing-board designs? The Sea Duck, I guess - it's not "original" in that it's an homage, but it is a design from scratch, as far as I know. And the ABC jets (though those were MesaRC designs done under the imprimatur of FT STEM). By contrast, the Simple Cub has roots in a couple designs posted to RC Groups. The three original swappables were literally reprints of others' designs, just modified to accept a modular power pod. That's perfectly acceptable, and the FT touch has kicked those designs up a notch, but it does speak to the FT design method relying on an existing base model that's then adjusted and possibly made swappable.
None of that's to say that those designs are completely unoriginal or that there's anything untoward happening at FT. I appreciate that inspirations are credited openly. Those who see farthest do so because they stand on the shoulders of giants, after all. And as someone who has designed in other arenas (cross stitch, paper models, etc.) both from scratch and from a basis of direct inspiration, I know that building on someone else's work still requires ingenuity, effort, and dedication. So again, no shade.
The TL;DR, I guess, is that without a rogue designer or mad scientist on staff, I don't see much in the way of "original" designs anytime soon. There'll be more of the Scout and the Cub: homages to bygone years of full-scale aviation. Those are fun videos to watch, but what made me buy a Simple Cub speedbuild kit was the Guinea Pig. I want to fly - maybe even design - something like that, and to get there I have to start with something a little less crazy. It's the crazy stuff that gets the gears turning and makes us engage.
And I guess that ties into the issues people raise with new FT versus classic FT - there's less crazy stuff to crank our gears. It's more passive entertainment. Again, it's entertainment I love, but it's not what gets my wallet out.