The thing about comments like this (sorry for using a throwaway comment as an example, I don't mean anything by it), is it assumes there is no action that would satisfy all fans.
But in fact, usually there is, for any given topic, and that's why people are continually surprised by how out of touch Star Trek show-runners can be at negotiating the nuances of their franchise. Take Marvel as a good example, where 95% of their decisions satisfy everyone, fans and new viewers alike, with a few exceptions, i.e. Malekith the Accursed being wasted as a villain, despite being one of Thor's most famous and charismatic arch enemies. I'm no Marvel expert, but the impression I get, is that he was probably meant to be something more like a despotic and militant version of David Bowie in Labyrinth.
In the case of Klingons, giving them some hair and maybe showing some variations in makeup (maybe even a couple of TOS Klingons in the back of a crowd somewhere), would satisfy literally everyone. People liked the Into Darkness designs, despite them being fairly radical. New fans would never notice, or would actually learn a bit of lore by Googling ("who are those ridgeless Klingons in the background crowd"), and old fans would have a way of linking every Klingon, according to their tastes.
Star Trek fandom is not prone to blind criticism and does not deserve to be portrayed as incapable of being satisfied, the fans are not some unreasonable horde that hate without reason (well, some individuals might be in any given group), most critics of DSC or the Kelvin films or ENT would have been largely satisfied by a few key demonstrations of understanding the material.
Just out of interest, let's look at what Doug Drexler, who let's not forget won an Oscar, before taking a pay cut to work on TV for his favourite franchise, thought about the design of the NX-01:
As an Original Series fan, Drexler became concerned with the chosen visual direction the producers had decided upon for the new prequel series, but as former co-worker Mandel stated, "Having been around then, I also know that Doug Drexler and John Eaves did exactly what the producers asked them to," despite the fact that Drexler, while proud of "(…) the NX-01, even though it was a frustrating experience," considered himself "(…) a "canon" kind of guy. I would have liked to have seen the Daedalus style ship. You know…the sphere instead of saucer. The producers wanted it to be a saucer because they wanted it "recognizable"." It hinted at elevated tension levels between producers and creative staffers on what a "proper" prequel visual style or starship design lineage should look like.
Also, on the first two Kelvin Timeline films:
"Technically they are beautiful… the work is stunning… however… and I hope no one will hold this against me… I did not enjoy the last two films, and honest…I really wanted to… but for me, Star Trek has to have a philosophical, humanist bend to it… always making a point, or asking a question. It should be introspective, and self examining. That's the Roddenberry factor. The new films are devoid of Gene Roddenberry, and at the end of the day, I'm not ok with that."
He is a diplomatic and good natured guy as far as I can tell from his Memory Alpha article, and these comments were uncharacteristic, so hope he does not mind his words being used as an example, but this is a person who understands the pretty obvious nuances surrounding Star Trek; that it has a fictional history, that it has a heart. None of what he said about the NX-01 would get in the way of telling a good story. And as for Star Trek's humanist bend, it's as important to the material as spirituality is to Star Wars, neither franchise would be what it is without it, so if that is a shackle on producers, who would rather create a work with a different soul, maybe they should rethink why they want to work on Star Trek specifically.
