Has someone here been pretending that G+ isn't a customer service disaster or making excuses for getting rid of the Magical Express? Some people may like G+, but that doesn't make them apologists (though it make mean they are in the minority based on guest feedback). It means G+ works for them, possibly better than FP+ did, depending on how they spend their park days and whether they stay off-site or on-site. I'm not one of them. I loved FP+ and I think WDW needs to focus on incentivizing staying on-site, but I don't begrudge anyone staying off-site who feels like they got their money's worth out of G+. Quite frankly, if someone is concerned about the cost of a WDW vacation, then G+ is a bit of a godsend because it allows them to save more money by staying off-site than they'll spend on G+ (and they might even get a complimentary breakfast at their off-site hotel, too). Contrary to the arguments made by the author of the article (and "Disney is expensive" isn't exactly breaking news), WDW isn't only for the rich. SOME of WDW is only for the rich, sure (or, perhaps more accurately, the rich and/or irresponsible). The average family can't afford to stay at the Grand Floridian for a week. But they can probably afford Port Orleans or one of the value resorts. "Is it worth it?" isn't for me to decide for them.
And there's a difference between saying guest satisfaction is down and saying "Disney is only for the rich." The 2 things are not necessarily joined at the hip. "Disney is only for the rich," means that it is unaffordable for anyone who isn't rich. That's patently false. There are affordable ways to stay at WDW even for a family of 5 with an average income. By the same token, a rich person is just as capable as anyone else of being put off by G+ or the removal of DME ("just because I can afford it doesn't mean I'm willing to accept it"). But the experience that apparently caused the one family in the article to contact the media ($900+ per night for a hotel room) isn't the experience of most WDW guests. Pointing to the poor customer satisfaction scores associated with G+ doesn't change the fact that the writer of that article had an obvious agenda.