Linux is way too popular to not consider all the use cases. And "interesting" is not a good yardstick for where effort should be spent.
[1] http://www.cnet.com/news/android-shipments-exceed-1-billion-...
As they get more powerful I could see apps doing more interesting things locally, but in doing this they will mostly be talking to distributed systems over a network. (E.g. peer to peer net in apps.)
The last bastion of the box is PC, but that is also a mature and stagnant platform whose use cases are mostly served by what is already there.
Also, having a "cloud" of thousands of physical or virtual servers doesn't mean you stop caring if your servers have or not poor performance due to inefficient IPC.
That's yet another reason to use TIPC[1] instead of inventing a new protocol, which can be used in either single node mode or in a network.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TIPC http://tipc.sourceforge.net/
I feel like the folks making these and other (kdbus) proposals are still thinking in terms of a "box." Boxes are dying. Almost everything interesting these days is distributed across networks with boxes being mere commodity hosts.
This is true in any modern data center or cloud infrastructure, and here it's often done via things like Kubernetes plus a pub sub bus and a clustered database.
It's also IMHO going to be true of any future next generation "decentralized" personal computing platform. All the interesting work I see in that space also takes the form of distributed systems that try to abstract away the box and deliver a kind of formless global cloud where boundaries are cryptographic.
In both cases the box is dying because it is unreliable and doesn't scale.
The trouble with local IPC is that its APIs are not going to be the same as network IPC. As a result programmers have to think about local vs remote to make use of it. So they won't.
That leaves only the local system services use case, which is already served.