Steinberg does pay attention to these matters, it’s evident in every single release. They may not be up to your personal hopes and dreams, but it’s obvious they are listening to their competitors. They are NOT a monopoly that can behave like they can ignore what’s happening in the market.
The problem is that many people either 1) don’t see that Steinberg devs ARE paying attention or 2) people don’t understand the difficult balance companies like Steinberg are trying to achieve meeting so many people’s expectations while also balancing existing limited development resources, or 3) some people just don’t agree with the direction companies like Steinberg are headed.
If you look at Steinberg’s current biggest competitors, it’s obvious that Steinberg is indeed closely watching, and if you watch the cadence of releases from these tight competitors over years, you’ll see the market dance going on, and Steinberg is clearly responding to one degree or another, in small ways, and sometimes in big ways, when a close competitor adds feature X, then Steinberg may also add their version of feature X, or counter with feature Y that overlaps with feature X. This doesn’t always happen, but it is more likely to happen within the primary battleground of Pro Tools vs Cubase/Nuendo vs Studio One (more recently) vs Logic (still to some extent) vs Ableton (more distantly, but it’s definitely on the radar of all DAW developers). To a lesser extent you also have DAWs like Bitwig, Reaper, Digital Performer and a few others on their radar, but they don’t appear to drive Steinberg as much.
Each release of Cubase/Nuendo specifically touches on all those major market competitors though, and tries to leap frog and innovate when they can in specific markets, which then gets a response from some competitors. Just make a spreadsheet of the last 5 years alone, and compare the release notes and dates of each release from just Cubase/Nuendo, Pro Tools, Ableton, and Studio One, and you’ll see what I mean. Recently, it seems Cubase and Studio One have been trading features, which is hilarious to watch, since Studio One was started by former employees of Steinberg. Even down to plugins where you saw Steinberg improve their EQ, then Studio One did the same, then Studio One introduced the vocoder, and then Steinberg brought back their vocoder, etc., etc., etc. Oh, they’re watching each other. No one is in a vacuum. Just look through the timing of features in other DAWs back and forth and it’s like watching a waltz. Nuendo vs Pro Tools is fun to watch too. Lots of examples…
Also, keep in mind that every feature ANY developer invests in, requires balancing of available resources/budget, and ultimate impacts/results. The good old ROI (return on investment) analysis. So, as a small example, in Cubase 13, Steinberg just introduced a really nice envelope painting tool in the sampler track, along with some great spectral warp algorithms from HALion 7. That was probably a relatively LOW resource investment but HIGH bang-for-buck IMO, since it will definitely make sound designers, electronic musicians, and other envelope-fanatics out there quite happy, maybe keep them from jumping ship to more modulation-friendly DAWs… and now Steinberg’s sample track can do some very nice new tricks. I love it. Good job, Steinberg. COST was likely LOW, RESULTS are EXCELLENT. ROI = GOOD.
These kinds of decisions are what governs companies like Steinberg. Now I totally understand your ideas and recommendations. I think some of them would be super nice. But you and I don’t know the COST to implement them, and while they may be good suggestions (that maybe are already on Steinberg’s todo list!), we definitely don’t know the ROI. We can only speculate. You and others might THINK a certain feature is so obvious that Steinberg MUST be able to implement it EASILY. Well, maybe not. It could be very, very expensive, and even if they WANT to do something like that, they would have to take resources away from something else. If you ran the company, maybe you’d have different choices, but one thing is certain, neither of us has access to their accounting spreadsheets and source code so we don’t know the ROI on ANY feature.
Anyway, I wish you the best. I’m not here to defend Steinberg. I’ve criticized them many times over the years, and I certainly wish they’d finally implement some feature requests I’ve been asking for (er-hem… RIPPLE EDITING for goodness sake! I always try to mention that over and over again in case they’re reading this just to remind them 
). But ultimately I do think Steinberg is actually doing what you are suggesting, but just at a conservative, very slow, or maybe even glacial pace. In the meantime, you can enjoy Bitwig for all the cool things it does, and maybe use it along side Steinberg products like I do! 
Good luck in your audio ambitions, and cheers!