Though I don’t quite agree with Stephan that Cubase and Dorico have totally different aims, they do excel at different things. They have been developed by two teams in different countries, though there is obviously overlap between the two teams, and the two programs share playback components.
I can’t begin to imagine what goes on at either the Dorico or Cubase offices, but permit me to speculate: there’s all sorts of things that Dorico couldn’t do (polymeter?) if it were constrained by the existing architecture that Cubase has. Cubase has 30 years of history, and even if the code has been rewritten multiple times, there’s presumably still technical debt in terms of the way that long-standing users expect a particular feature to work. Dorico’s huge advantage over other notation software is that it has (almost) no technical debt whatsoever - the developers started from zero code and wrote it the way they thought best, albeit with over 100 years’ combined experience in notation software.
As to this forum and the many thousands of threads on it: the Finale forum has thousands of threads, and so does the Sibelius forum. You’ll frequently find users, on both, grumbling that their requests aren’t taken into consideration. Occasionally you’ll see replies from either customer service operatives or, more rarely, from the actual developers. You’ll find similar threads on this forum, but 99% of the time, here, the actual development team DO get involved (even on weekends and holidays), and if a request is reasonable then they’ll engage with it and perhaps implement it.
This forum doesn’t represent an unhappy user base, complaining about unintuitive software. It’s a thriving community, sometimes struggling to break old habits from other software, helping each other out.