I believe the claim is that, IF IPv6 had been a much more minor modification of IPv4, including just a change to the packet structure to have a larger address field, it would have seen more adoption more rapidly than the current version of IPv6 which also changes everything else about the L2-3 stack. Sure, you would have still needed new devices and that would have taken some years, but as long as the network architecture remained the same, it wouldn't have required a quarter century to get to 30% adoption.

I don't know that I believe this claim at all, but it is at least coherent and possible (unlike claims that N-bit addresses could have been added to IPv4 in a backwards compatible manner). Perhaps SLAAC, the focus on routable end user devices etc were indeed major distractions that pulled focus away from a move to a new larger address space - which is the only thing people actually wanted from IPv6.

I don't feel strongly about it, but my reading of the complaint is that the implication is it should've been something like an address in 240.0.0.0/4 plus more bits. Then to IPv4 it looks like a reserved for future use address (and we declare we're done with IPv4 now, there will be no (other) future use) but to (this hypothetical variant of) IPv6 it's a longer address.

I think what annoys people is everything else that changed with it, if DHCP (I know), subnets, NAT if you wanted it, etc. was all just the same, if the model was the same the IPs were just longer now, that they wouldn't really complain.

I'm not even sure it would be necessary to put it in unaddressable v4 block, since it would be too long and a different version anyway. Obviously people have thought about this a lot more than me so know a lot more about it, I'm not naïve about that.