The thing is that even a relatively modest software change such as Michael is going to cost something like $100,000.
You need to develop the algorithms. Then the menu items to control the new feature. Then update the documentation. Then you need to build test equipment to test the feature on the manufacturing line. Then you need to train manufacturing people to use it, and write documentation for the test equipment, and so on.
Since we're not philanthropists, we need to see $200,000 in profits, at least. This means you gotta show me a couple thousand units of sales based on your new feature.
Is that going to happen?
I dunno. Sure, Michael might buy one (but probably not, because it would be in the wrong body or at the wrong time, or, or, or). Would anyone else buy a camera based on a new esoteric exposure mode, or is virtually every single buyer out there pretty much happy with the gigantic sheaf of time-tested exposure modes already available?
Is this the sort of thing that moves the needle on sales? I am dubious, but I don't know.
What I do know is this: Michael doesn't know either. There are ways to find out, but I don't see Michael talking about the focus groups and market surveys he's performed. He's simply telling people at camera companies about this idea he has.
It's not a bad idea, and manufacturers do like to hear these ideas. But if they only ever hear about ETTR and new exposure modes from one source, they're simply not going to care. They need to hear it, or similar ideas, or problems that would be solved by the idea, from multiple sources. Then they'll consider spending some money to focus group it, or otherwise measure the value of the new feature. And then if THAT proves out, they'll go ahead and implement it.
My sense is that camera makers are not hearing anything about how they need to improve their exposure calculation technology, except from Michael.