Naturally, Maplesoft wants to expand sales of Maple. I am sure there is a market for Maple in the educational world - math, engineering and science education. That would imply that Maple should be developed - as far as backward compatibility allows - by improving its core, its packages such as VectorCalculus and Physics, and develop new packages to address perceived gaps. Some of the "pointy clicky" stuff seems to be aimed at the educational world, and those working in that world are best qualified to comment on its usefulness.
I am a great deal less sure that there is much of a market for Maple in the engineering world. Most engineers do not need to return to the very simple mathematical models that they used to learn engineering principles with the help of Maple or similar. Mostly, they use specialized software that models their problem more accurately and whose output is more usable. This is not the place to discuss such specialized software, except to say that it is expensive, has been developed over many years, can feed directly into drawing and manufacturing packages, and has been approved by various classification and codification authorities.
Perhaps the same kind of remarks applies to software for physics: Maple is great for helping to learn the principles, but real life is more complicated. If there are any practicing physicists out there, please add your two cents worth.
Jacques and Roman have already commented on Maple for math research.
I am driven to conclude that Maplesoft’s strategy should be to concentrate on the educational market, which as Jacques implies is mature.