While U2 have shifted directions several times, each album still retains the "essence" of U2. Songs like "One" or "Wild Horses" might have worked on JT. Sure, some obvious differences exist (like the intro to "Horses" or Bono's scratchier singing on "One") - but these were intentional. Remove them and they work rather well with JT. Yet, AB still remains a very different album that JT. Some songs on TUF could have worked on "War", in fact, one might argue that "Pride" belongs a bit more on "War" than it does on TUF. Likewise, NLOTH has songs like "Crazy" which definitely blend in with ATYCLB and HTDAAB, but it also contains "Moment of Surrender", which is very fresh for U2. If MOS belongs on any other album, it might be R&H. Speaking of R&H, we had pop songs, rock songs, blues songs, jazz songs, old style songs and fresh songs. It was really a great mix.
My point is that to say the next album will be "radically different" is, by definition, setting it up for failure. U2 has an unique sound. We are fortunate that this sound is as diverse as it is. Most artists don't have that. Still, the sound is present: one hears echoes of "October" in "New York" - two songs released nearly 2 decades apart, yet still vastly different tracks.
I challenge artists like Bon Jovi, Aerosmith, REM, Beyonce, Gwen Stefani, or whoever else you like to be as diverse as U2. Only two artists come close: The Beatles and Madonna. Yet, even with them, you hear the basic elements of their sound throughout their work.
Therefore, if U2 can some how pull in the magic of "Moment of Surrender", keep pop-rock songs more like "Beautiful Day" (and not a "copy" of it), slow songs like WOWY, yet still flow with the zeitgeist of today's music and themes, then I'll be happy. And I have a feeling U2 will do just that. Bono's poetic lyrics allow for multiple interpretations - something that worked in 1983 will still work in 2013. And the bands sound just creates classic music. This is why "Boy" still sounds fresh today.
But if you are expecting something so new and different, then you will be upset. If U2 actually created such an album, then they'd lose all of what makes them U2.
Perhaps you'd like less "hits". The thing is, the albums that produced the biggest hits worldwide for U2 are also considered their most influential and best selling albums - namely JT and AB. You may argue that the songs on those two albums were just so good they couldn't help but be hits. That is, U2 had no intention of making them classics.
I love the myth of U2, but really, that's what it is - a myth. There's the "magic" of Santa too, which I love at this time of year. And there is reality. I'm sure U2 wanted those songs to be hits - they were released as singles and promoted. U2 wanted those albums to have hit songs. This is their career. U2 wanted that success and worked hard to achieve it. Proof is the songs themselves: slow love songs like WOWY and "One" often zoom to the top of the charts. Fun pop/rock songs like MW often make for great hits (ask the Black Eyed Peas - they've made a career out of bubblegum pop/rock music).
What I hope for is another NLOTH type album. I'm not crazy about every track, but then, that's true for every U2 album. But I want more of an album than a collection of singles. NLOTH wasn't quite perfect in that regard, but it was the closest U2 have come to that idea since the AB (or maybe "Zooropa"). To me, that is U2's strength - the album. Hits will come if they focus on creating a great album. Also, if U2 want a strong first single, keep the idea simple - forcing it with songs like "Discotheque" or GOYB doesn't work. Save those for second or third singles. Instead, stick with something a bit more traditional and that can appeal to everyone (e.g. "Pride", WOWY, "Desire", and BD).
For now, I'm looking forward to the album.
I actually was expecting a barrage of attacks saying how I'm blinded to reality and yada. 
