Yeah, but thst standard doesn't seem to apply here: take it or leave it, they've spent years on these revisions.
They don't seem to have been working on them very intensively for the 1.75 years or so it's been since the playtest started. Rather it looks like the changes have been somewhat slow/light - we're talking the same time period that 4E and D&D Next/5E went from nothing to "full games", and given you yourself have claimed these changes are "less than a .5 edition", it seems weird to simultaneously appear to imply they're super-high-effort, given that.
Also, at least 30-50% of what they've presented has involved bizarre and terrible ideas no-one asked for, and the community as told them such. So I feel like there's been a fair amount of wasted effort that was "obviously" going to be wasted. I will note the stuff the community has said "HELL NO" to has pretty much 100% been stuff I read and immediately "God that's a terrible idea", and I'm mystified that WotC's designers even put it through (like nerfing Rogues, for god's sake lol! Rogues!)
As for a "cash grab", well, I think what defines a cash grab is usually the "grab" element - you don't usually see a "cash grab" followed by longer-term support. If 5E goes on another 5-10 years with the 2024 design, and is supported at at least the level if has been since 2014 (which has varied a bit, but we know what it is), I don't think 2024 can reasonably be called a "cash grab". If, on the other hand, if D&D suddenly has a massive drop in non-digital support in say, 2 years, then yeah, we might have to go back and take another look at whether it was.