Text editors are another classic example of this conundrum. Some problems seem to attract problem-solvers, and some do not.
Of course, I'm not talking about IDEs or web-based editors. You're right though, I do enjoy the innovation in web editors.
1. Out-of-the-box integration with modern toolsets (0-configuration documentation, smart autocomplete, build, debug, jump-to-definition, etc)
2. Present an interface that is easily discoverable by GUI-minded folk
3. Take advantage of the opportunities afforded by non-textual displays
but each of these is done "poorly" in E&V for a good reason, as per your text editor / IDE distinction. They can't change these things without stepping on the toes of their power users (i.e. all of them) and leaving behind part of what made them great, which is why this kind of innovation is happening away from E&V. Most of the apps I listed address between 1 and 3 of the above issues. Just because the young upstart editors don't support keyboard input and customization with the fluidity of E&V doesn't mean they are purely derivative. They do something that a lot of people want done that E&V don't do, and they do it well. That's what innovation is all about.
So I ask again what it is that you would consider innovation and why the projects I listed don't count.
I'll repeat that we're partly talking past each other, but you are correct that the kind of (valuable! useful!) innovations you list tend to happen by an upstart and then are copied into other programs. So it is healthy to have a field of contenders rather than two dinosaurs.
You're also pitching this as some kind of argument, which I think is your mistake.
Never did I say that people shouldn't make new text editors. I remarked that some problems seem to attract developers, and some don't. I think that structural issue is more interesting than editor feature evolution.