I don't like Glocks and I don't own one, but I'll chime in on this anyway.
I don't like Glocks because I think they're uglier than sin. Pure and simple.
However, this should not be construed to mean I think Glock makes junk. It's hard to argue with more than 25 years of solid business with the United States (32 total) and over a million guns sold in the United States alone. In a very tough, competitive market, Glock has managed to corner 65% of the American police departments as customers, not to mention a sizable chunk of private owners.
And by all accounts, Glock's reliability is top-notch...legendary, even, if you listen to all the anecdotal ravings of the verbose Glock owners.
How much more "innovation" does Glock need? Seems to me that they do a good job at developing and marketing some rether impressive products AND supporting those same products by improving them and taking care of their customers through recalls. Recalls that, from what I can find, are few and far between.
You complain that Glock hasn't put out an OEM carbine, .223, or a single stack 9mm while in the same breath also complaining about their .45 G.A.P. and .380.
You seem to want innovation...but NOT the innovations that Glock HAS come up with. See, that's the problem with "innovations"...not everybody wants them. Successful innovations aren't just innovations that work...they're innovations that people want badly enough to actually buy them in quantities that make them successful for the business that produces them.
The Glock 42, their .380 gun, is successful as indicated by a market which is making it profitable for Glock. This argues strongly against your statement that this is "a .380 no one asked for". Which means it's really a Glock that YOU didn't ask for.
Had Glock introduced their .380 ten or more years ago, it may very well have flopped.
The problem with introducing a new gun in the market is that it's in direct competition with a lot of other guns in the same caliber and category. It's a chancy thing doing this for any number of reasons. For Glock to enter an already robust market with a carbine or a .223 design means they have to invest capital, engineering, and manufacturing resources to develop and manufacture something which may or may not sell enough to be worth the effort.
An example of this would be the .45 G.A.P., which was their attempt at making a .45 caliber handgun that could match the .45 ACP, but in a smaller package. They succeeded...but have essentially only occupied a very tiny niche in the gun market. The .45 G.A.P. is essentially a novelty gun, in my opinion, which isn't supported by any other manufacturers of either guns or ammunition now.
I rather suspect that Glock WILL come up with further innovations...but they'll do it on their own time and dime, when they think the market will support what they come up with.
Perhaps one of those innovations will even be a gun that isn't uglier than sin and I'll be standing in line to buy it.
. Also, not that I follow it or anything, but hasn't the G42 had a couple specific issues already that will need addressing?
