Just to add 2 more bits:
I've read the combat section of the new book now, and I'm even less pleased. I was hoping there would be better wording in the actual rules, but no. In fact, the examples only make the idea more ludicrous
For example, if you enter the threat area of say, a troll, with a 10' reach, you don't incur an AoO. But if you actually ENGAGE the troll by moving in, then you do. I don't see any sort of logic here. This is one of the examples they use, so it's not like this is a too literal understanding of the rules.
Also, unarmed attacks provoke AoO, but unarmed touchh attacks by spellcasters do not. Why does a trained warrior provoke additional risk when actually fighting when a non-combat trained wizard does not? This, again, is something explicitly stated. No, it's not new material, but it's bugging me really bad.
You can't even circle an enemy you're dueling with (as he circles you) because you'll be provoking AoO from each other. What kind of combat is this? They say that you're doing a whole lot of weaving, ducking, and blocking, but from the rules standpoint you really ARE just standing there with your feet planted.
I think that there are good uses for AoO, one of the primary being against spellcasters, and by the time the spellcasters are any sort of real threat, AoO isn't even an issue due to defensive casting and the improbability that their concentration check will fail even by third or fourth level. But they've taken it too far, it doesn't make sense and it's just more of a bother that adds more die rolls to a combat round