I am simply not interested in C1 as they do not bother to support all cameras, some for political reasons.
That's your choice, and your loss. C1 supports very many Raw formats. It's not that they don't 'bother' (why are you so negative?) to support all cameras, but they choose to not support certain cameras, mostly technological outliers with low marketshare (e.g. Foveon) and competitor's MF cameras, indeed for commercial (low or negative return on R&D expense/investment) and 'political' reasons.
Why would anyone invest time and effort into software that may not support future camera purchases?
LOL, talk about spreading FUD. Which non-MF cameras do you own that are not supported, and didn't they come with their own Raw conversion software? And why do you expect Adobe to support every camera that the future may produce and that you need to have? I'll grant you that they will perhaps try, but you do not have their written guarantee either. Just because you prefer to use Lightroom or ACR doesn't mean that everybody else in the universe should then make it possible for you to keep using their competitors product.
Adobe's open and free DNG format was simply to get away from the pointless constant 'new' raw formats that software needs updating for unnecessarily. The new part may simply be nothing more the new model name in the raw file.
I sincerely hope you are kidding, and not serious. If you
are serious then that explains part of the misguided comments. DNG is nothing more than a container, a TIFF variety, but all Raw converter software (including a generic glutton like DCRaw) still needs to be tuned to decode the raw data properly, for every new Raw format. It's not a simple read the RGB data from the designated fields and demosaic it, it's much more involved than that (if you want good quality). Otherwise there would not have been issues with the Fuji Xtrans Raw data or the Foveon Raw data, or the Olympus E-M5 II Multishot (Pixel Shift), or Lytro models, to name a few special ones.
It is also a lot of work for Camera makers to adapt to the specific file layout requirements of DNGs that may be too rigid because all their competitor's cameras also need to use the same fields and thus that data must be made uniform. For example, because Nikon uses WhiteBalance prescaling to allow compresssion of their Raws, also Canon would now need to convert their Raw data and/or populate the fields that instruct the Raw converter to reverse part of that even though the Canon files do not use such scaling. They do not need those extra steps with their own Raw conversion engine, and it's only more work with potential for mistakes, cost but no benefits for them.
The whole point of DNG is you do not have to wait for your favourite processing tool to be updated to work on raw files from your shiny new camera, except C1.
That's a load of misguided crock. Also Adobe needs to at least create profiles before they formally can support a camera, and when Sony cameras use lossy compression, they need to figure out how to reverse the compression, and adjust for non-linear tone curves, etc. It may be true that Adobe doesn't use all the Raw data to make a superior Raw conversion, and it shows (e.g. they originally ignored Canon data that was needed to reduce banding issues, and even didn't store it in the DNG).
C1's Raw conversions on average are sharper, usually have fewer artifacts, and are correctable for specific sensor issues with LCCs, and offer corrections for sharpness fall-off towards the corners, reduce impulse noise, etc. C1 also needs time to create that, but they are usually pretty well up-to-date (e.g. EOS 5DS is already supported before the camera is commercially available).
It even means you can use old Adobe products with new cameras by using the free DNG convertor, so DNG will in fact not help sell any more Adobe products.
Sure, of course Adobe wants to lower the threshold for using their products, but why would competitors need to help them with that by creating DNGs for Adobe products? Besides, if Adobe's DNG conversion works so great, by all means do continue to use it. Oh wait, it too needs to learn the new Raw formats, because it is more complex than just putting the R/G/B data in the R/G/B fields. Some of the sensel positions may have Phase detect data in them, and may not be suitable for demosaicing of color triplets. Your 'solution' seems to be; let the camera manufacturers do the work for Adobe, so Adobe can reduce cost and sell more Adobe products that can also be used with competing camera brands ...
Cheers,
Bart