Michael,
From what I recall, in SU, a component was like a group of objects by itself, but once copied, acted like clones.
You could manage them, but where their special ability came in - if you edited one (didn't matter which), all "clones" of the the component would update automatically. SU allows you to manage these components in a library system along with all kinds of other special features.
In SU, if you un-grouped a component, it would separate into the base object with no connection to the behavior of the original instance.

But what would really only be needed is more like an instancing or clone type control over what could be considered a group.
Make your single or multiple objects a group - and you would be allowed to make instances or clones of that group.
Altering one would change all.
Un-group one and it would be considered an individual set of regular objects with no linked editing action or history.

A huge advantage to a 'component' or 'instance' is the amount of file size space you could save because of the reference to one whole-original.

One bolt or 'widget' object could become hundreds! It would only occupy the amount of space in the file that it took to surface that object.
The only limitation would be had in the video card tessellation.


I don't know how, personally, this would translate to the 3dm/Rhino-compatible formatting... it sure would have become handy when I made that Cutangus tank thing!


On the issue of groups, I would love to see that come to fruition. If for anything, it makes object management easier.
Working with groups is a kin to moving you home contents to another house. Sure, it's nice to tell the movers: pick all the red items, a red book, a red dish, a red vacuum. And yes, you could tell the movers to grab all the 'chairs' and 'tables', but boxes (or groups) really help make a home move more manageable of course. ;-)

The great thing is, that you wouldn't loose the naming of your objects in the bargain of naming larger selections of objects.