Personally I think DPI is about as important as an 8.3 file name restriction. Just one more parameter some programs with a perfectly good GUI want you to wrestle with. I'll take an image and print it how I want to, not at the size a DPI setting dictates.
You seem to think it's a useless feature but it's anything but - but I agree thet how it's implemented is far from perfect, especially in Photoshop, but then Photoshop hardly has a perfect GUI - I don't like the way it handles DPI settings.
If people don't know the benefits of it they'll not see any point, if you print a 1 Mpixel image is it blocky? I wont because I'll up the DPI before printing and that'll smooth out the blockyness.
You can do the same without a DPI setting by upping the resolution to 3K X 4K and that'll have the same effect (assuming the scaler is a good one).
Sure a sample is a sample, but a player program that has to be told the sample rate before playing is just poor coding.
All sample programs have to know the sample rate before playing a sample - it's in the header of the sample fine. An MP3 player has to know the bitrate to play an MP3 correctly.
If you mean you shouldn't have to type it in I agree, but it's there none the less.
I mentioned samples specifically because if you have a sample at say 8KHz (the old Amiga standard) it'll be horribly noisey due to quantisation noise. If you resample it to 44KHz it'll smooth out the noise, there is no more information in the sample but it'll sound a lot better. This is exactly the same as what I'm doing with images for printing, DPI in this case is the tool that allows me to do this.