Seems like we go in circles in this discussion :).
When you break down the KPA product and its competition, seems like things can be broken into 2 markets, and a few categories:
The two markets are Recording and home production, and live gigs.
The categories are:
1) Sound Quality
2) Ease of Use
3) Functionality
4) Marketability
Things like multiple amps, graphical routing (multiple series parallel paths, etc), more effects, etc all go into "Functionality".
Where KPA has shined has always been sound quality and ease of use. For gigging, it has flat out been the best thing on the market (IMO) for quite some time and continues to be to this day. For ease of use, among its completion, it is by far the easiest to use for live work (IMO).
It isn't as marketable as QC or AxeIIIFX. All those shiny color routed screens are tough to compete with for the poor KPA's monochrome non-touch-screen interface.
It isn't as functional as the QC or Axe III FX either. The routing and output capabilities of these products far exceed the KPA.
In the past, I have advocated for a KPA Mini (ie, just scale down into a lower cost market). If anything, I feel like a simple upgrade to a color LCD could greatly improve the marketability of the KPA.
I have always felt that the KPA is a gigging musicians tool. It doesn't need to be pretty, it just needs to sound good and be easy to use live .... and be ROCK SOLID reliable/durable.
It is also great for people who want to record with classic amp sounds but don't want to carry around a truck full of amps.
For those with functionality desires for multiple amps, and advanced series/parallel routing capabilities, I have never felt the KPA is the right tool for that job..... and for me, I don't want it to be.
The KPA workflow (for me) is easy and very "amp like" (for those of us who are classic tube amp setup guys). It has just enough "Digital" work-flow capabilities to be "simple" compared to an entire pedal board of pre and post effects, yet not get crazy confusing in doing so.
I guess what I am saying is that I am not sure I want the KPA2 to deviate too much from the formula it is currently using for success.
I agree that a KPA2 is necessary due to manufacturing constraints. Chips become obsolete and companies just quit making them. Nothing you can do but redesign the product around new parts. If I were the product manager of the KPA I would be thinking about things like:
1) Color LCD - Touch Screen - Soft menu buttons (marketability)
2) Move from a 4 pre / 4 post to "n pre / n post" (functionality)
3) Integrate WiFi and BT into the unit (functionality)
4) Dedicated phone app (ease of use)
5) Advanced tablet app (designed work-flow from ground up for unit operation, not rig management) (ease of use)
6) PC rig manager (ease of use)
The very act of using newer, more powerful, DSP chips would likely give the new KPA2 a sound quality edge over the existing KPA, but I doubt that this would be the reason people would pick the KPA2 over the KPA1.
Keep in mind that at this point, we aren't just talking about a new product. We are talking about a new generation product line. It is likely that the "Cadillac" version would go first .... the Toaster and Foot Controller. After this, the rack, stage, and mini would need to be filled out to complete a full market product line. The existing Kabinet should be interchangeable. It would be a nice touch of the old foot controller was also compatible for those who have existing product and want to upgrade to the KPA2.
Anyway .... those are just my 2 cents 