Maybe just maybe. Customers don’t really want IPv6 but are forced onto it. Ipv6 is not human usable and gets rid of a bunch of network design norms.
People never interact with these protocols directly and use a layer of indirection such as a HTTP/2 client for HTTP, and the same applies for IPv6: use DNS (or your hosts file).
And of course the need to maintain two sets of IP addresses and two sets of IP address prefixes - even and especially in DNS itself - is probably the number one factor slowing down the deployment of IPv6. That and far too many places, far too many interfaces, far too many protocols, and far too many APIs (notably Berkeley sockets) that are not transparent to which network layer protocol is being used or what the address format is. The wire format, transfer format, configuration format, and administration of DNS address records is a case in point.
Unfortunately, such changes are quite common in networking; Linux networking has many moving parts these days, there was the move to iproute2 and nftables, and the like, so one can only try to best keep up with the changes.
And for reverse DNS, PTR records? What should we use there?
IPv6 doesn't seem "human usable" sometimes in large part because you aren't actually using it. People adapt. The human skills in pattern matching are robust: there are new tricks to learn, but there were always tricks to learn. (IPv4 addresses aren't "human usable" either if you sit down to truly assess absolutely how many RFCs are involved to build the patterns "everyone" has internalized that seem "easy". They are easy because they are familiar, because you use them often, because you've already adapted to them.)
More like it gets rid of band-aids
Computers do.