I think many of these features can be categorized. Some features automate things that photographers do anyway. And some automation tries to be "smart" while some doesn't. You can let the camera choose what to focus on or tell it what to focus on and still let the camera focus rather than relying on your eyes and fingers. You can shoot in P mode and let the camera figure out whether you need a fast shutter speed for action or small aperture for DOF, or you can shoot in A or S mode and simply let it do the dumb part and still be ahead of the guy who insists on M mode always even though he still relies on the built in camera meter and simply dials the shutter speed until the little indicator lines up
Some of the new gadgets fall under the attempts at smart automation (smile detection).
Then there are the in-camera processing options, like Oly's "art filters". That's harmless stuff IMO and if someone gets a kick out of it, good for them.
Live view is interesting. Main sensor live view is something that can be useful at times, and easily ignored at other times. Sony's fast AF live view is sort of an alternate VF system that's great for p&s newbies, but not free because you compromise with a smaller pentamirror VF.
Video, though, is a whole 'nuther beast. It doesn't automate, it doesn't help take pictures, it just adds a different capability to a still camera. If it's truly free, I can't see why there would be objections to it. But I can also easily see why people would say they'll never use it. You sort of know whether or not you want to shoot video ... it's not some feature that you'll try one day and find that it would have enabled you to get all sorts of pictures if only you'd had it all your life. It lets you shoot video. It's sort of like combining a future car and an personal aircraft in one ... maybe one day we'll get to the point where little compact personal airplanes use the same propulsion technology as land based automobiles so why not combine them, but putting light capability in your vehicle doesn't help it cruise the highways any better; it just gives you a capability you may or may not ever want to use.
Some of the grumbling is amusing as is some of the counter-grumbling ... why would you need XXXX, Ansel Adams didn't need XXXX ! The "oldies but goodies" argument. Great if you want to restrict yourself to shooting what the oldies but goodies shot and like doing things "the hard way".
So what else ... image tagging. Built in GPS to record location is obvious, but there have to be all sorts of tagging features. Live view leading to various electronic VFs from articulating LCDs to wired (even wireless ?) remote panels (heck, why not beam live view to a pair of VR glasses so nobody realizes you're looking at whatever the camera is looking at), built in EVFs, hot shot EVFs. More 3D stuff (Fuji's doing something 3D-ish but I don't know what it is). Lots more funky stuff in digicams to try to duplicate big camera results (like the recent one that has PPing to simulate shallow DOF).
But it's all just messing around with digital files; so long as the basics are there - a lens projecting an image onto a sensor, I think you can add features 'til the cows come home without compromising the basic "integrity" of still photography (by that, I mean the ability of a photographer to simply take pictures). PPing to correct optical defects doesn't bother me at all.
Oddly, Sony, the gadget company everyone feared would destroy the Minolta SLR line, let leak the owner manual for the A850 - a cheaper version of the FF A900, and it still appears to be a bare bones camera without LV or video.
--
Gallery at
http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com 
