"Another element is that the line between framed and frameless is getting blurred."
Also, you could legitimately call the arc blast an external frame pack. LOL So yes, very blurry.
I think there is much merit in a lot of the things he says - I been reading them here and in other places for a while now. Also I'd love to own one of his packs, one I'm absolutely sure what pack I would need for %80 of my trips for the rest of my life.
On the other hand, while I totally buy the definition of the right amount of pack as "the one the FEELS the least heavy on you back for what you are carrying, not the one that is actually the lightest weight", he has some rather conservative rules on the material he is willing to use. He call it the minimum material weight to be "safe". I suppose that there is an issue of long-term durability, but while I'm sure it has occasionally happened, I have never read a post, or heard of a situation arising, where an UL pack so self-destructed on the trail as to present more than a nuisance, let alone a "safety" issues. So that seems like a hyperbolic statement to me, though I'm willing to be convinced otherwise. In my repair kit, for instance, I have everything I need to make major repairs, if necessary, to my pack though I have never had to do much more than slap a patch on a hole or rip while on the trail. If like Dan you are selling packs for 2-4 times what we might call the commercial equivalents, then yeah, anyone spending that much is probably going to place a higher emphasis on being able to pass it down in his/her will.
Though I hear analogous arguments on here all the time, I reject the economy of spending 10 times as much for something that last 3 times as long - e.g. "dryducks ($20) are more fragile so I buy a rain jacket that costs 10 times that because they last longer. They can be repaired in-field with duct tape. So short of cosmetic issues, or you really don't like the feel of them, the argument about them being too fragile is bogus. Likewise when Dan makes packs that are a lot cheaper, I think I would buy the arguments about durability a bit more.
But it is true that if I ever wanted to carry 30+ lbs the backpack I would currently use for that weight about 3 lbs. But I think he is comparing apples and oranges when he uses the 25-35 lb range. A lot of people on here would realize its not going to be a joy to use a very light pack to carry that much weight, but I think people who consider themselves LW, let alone UL, would only be carrying that kind of weigh for short periods of time.
So methinks he doth protest too much.