GMT cerachrom vs. alum bezel layouts

[grymg]

As someone who has owned a 16710 Coke for 15 years before selling it recently to obtain a 116710BLNR, I have some thoughts on the old vs. new bezel layout I wanted to get off my chest now that i have it in hand.

Quick background on my buying choice: yes I did read up on all the Pros/Cons for old vs. new to the point where I was obsessive about it. Even more so as my name was placed on the waiting list. But at the end of the day I had no regret selling my 16710 to fund my BLNR. I may lose sleep on it here and there but overall I'm happy with my choice.

But the new bezel font takes some getting used to. Sure, it's been a while since it has come out, but it's so different to the point where it looks like a completely different watch.

My questions/thoughts/ramblings:
1) Does anyone actually prefer the new font and layout vs. the old one? For one, the hour numbers are disproportionately wide compare to the maxi dial indicies. Distinct, separated numbers make it easier to find where exactly the GMT hand is positioned. Imitation is a form of flattery which Rolex knows well but haven't seen many any other companies try to copy the new layout. (On the other hand, we get more platinum - yay)
2) It seems to me like Rolex could have easily went the subC route and just preserved the old layout onto the new cerachrom material and call it a day (my attached pic). So why didn't they? Theory #1: In my view, at first glance of sub and GMT LN alum. bezel watches, a layman could confuse them as the same watch. So maybe Rolex wanted further differentiation between the sub and GMT especially since their dials look very similar to one another. And there was no way in hell they would touch their iconic sub line, so the GMT had to change.
3) Theory #2: The subs and SD's porting over from alum. to cerachrom were fine since they are single colored bezels. For the GMT however, they didn't perfect the two tone process yet (at least that what we are made to believe - maybe they did perfect it but were wanting to bring it out at a later date) and only had LN's to sell. For some, solid colors don't have the same appeal as the two tone in terms of look and GMT usefulness, so Rolex changed up the bezel layout to intice collectors to buy something "new and exciting".
4) Theory #3: To safeguard themselves from another downturn. Basically if their GMT sales take a dip, Rolex goes back to the original 2006 bezel layout on cerachrom bezel and this would create a firestorm of demand for the "GMTc v2.0". So they are just shelving the design to return at the right time. Unfortunately for me this would create a severe drop in price for the current line of ceramic bezel GMT's as people ditch it in favor of the timeless, more iconic GMT bezel layout (imagine the waiting lists!). This is hardly the correct analogy but I remember the Air Jordan Black Cement 3 - back in 2001 they had "NIKE AIR" logo on the heels, and then for subsequent retros they changed the heels to have Jumpman logos. Consequently the 2001 BC3 shot up in value (much like how the 16710 is now), to 2x the retail of the retro MSRP (and up). Then 10 years later Nike releases a BC3 with "NIKE AIR" heels in limited quantities and it's in huge demand. This has also happened with the 4's, then probably 5's and 6's are around the corner. The jumpman heeled shoes price fell accordingly, just like the GMTc's will.

More along the same lines, I could also ask why the new BLRO red and blue colors don't match the originals, and my theories would still apply.