I respectfully disagree with you (we known each other from such a long time, that we basically grew old together with Flight sim...) so you will not mind if I'm telling you are wrong this time.
1) Access to GSX pre-release.
Wrong comparison here, I never had any access to AES BEFORE it was released, so it would be unfair to compare a very different situation. Oliver will surely receive his free copy of GSX now that is out, although he surely can check it already if with all our airports, included AES interoperability, since all our airports also have AES... but, as I've said, he'll receive his free copy now, no problem.
2) Use of the intelliscene file.
We HAVE our own interface and file format to recognize and configure airplanes, which is way more complete and complex comparing to what the intelliscene file does, since it adds (for example) dedicated entires for catering doors, not just as mirrors of the main exit, so we can accomodate asymmetrical exits like in the 737, and we can specify custom code to recognize non-standard doors and ground connections and much more, it's a file format written *IN* the Python language, it doesn't have any similarity whatsoever with the standard .INI file format that it's used by AES, even conceptually.
GSX by default use that one, and this is what we prefer users will rely on.
But, you can't blame GSX for being able to read EXISTING intelliscene files that might be ALREADY in possession of users, which are just plain standard .INI files, and are only used as a 2nd best option, if the airplane in unknown to GSX.
In fact, recognizing the intelliscene format as a de-facto standard, is exactly the opposite of "competing" like you said, if we were trying to really compete, we would have introduced our own similar-but-slightly-different format, in Microsoft style, as when they "improve" the html format, in order to break a standard.