This is an interesting dynamic with a number of elements in play which might have carry-over to other realms of new technology adoption (or resistance):

- A small and specialised market.

- Numerous gatekeepers, each of whom might exert a veto (dancers, teachers, company directors, etc.).

- Highly subjective judging criteria, with benefits or limitations of alternatives not being evident possibly for a long time.

- A high level of highly-interdependent skills. A dancer's performance literally turns on her shoes, and a whole set of muscle-memory, training, technique, and expectations are based on a familiar product. Changing this is probably anxiety-producing.

- Careers are relatively short, lasting perhaps 10--20 years, rarely longer. Taking big risks on equipment may have low appeal.

Balancing all of this, if there does turn out to be some spectacular advantage to new kit, it's possible that change could happen rapidly. This has been the case elsewhere in the sports world. Shoes for runners, footballers (world or American, take your pick), swimmer's costumes, skiing equipment, etc., have all changed radically over the past 50 years (and were changing well before that). Ballet has strong traditions, but those might well bend.

If you're looking at this from a tech-adoption / tech-rejection / product-management hat, you might consider what the landscapes you're facing or contemplating look like relative to the ballet world, which conditions are similar or different. Small markets might be more resistant to change, though if there's fierce and unambiguous performance differentiation you might have an edge. Vetocracy is a concept gaining awareness in numerous disciplines. Highly-gate-kept or regulated fields tend to advance more slowly. Tightly-coupled systems evolve less quickly than loosely-coupled ones. Long run-times, careers, or organisational viability might allow for greater risk taking, or at least the opportunity for new entrants to launch trying different tools.