How did you "come up" with that? Seems very unlikely that is a part of Canon's business model.
Your tireless persistence in condescendingly explaining Canon's business model to Canon users in multiple threads is much appreciated by someone, I'm sure.
Also, I was engaging in what seemed like obvious hyperbole. This does not mean that I required a rebuke or lecture on Canon's marketing strategy. It means that I considered being screwed over the effect of their marketing strategy on myself and others, and considered it pretty gratuitous and inexplicable, even after reading and understanding your explanations.
In his review, Mr.Reichmann concluded:
"Overall I was very impressed with the Canon G7. It does a lot of things right within the context of its price, size and its likely intended constituency." Empahsis added
(The conclusion does go on to consider how it might have been better, or hit a bigger market.)
Yes, we can read also. I share Michael's disappointment exactly, since I would be in that bigger market, and feel pretty certain that Raw Capture would have been a nearly costless feeature for Canon to include. In fact, I'd have to believe that from the perspective of this single product, leaving off Raw Capture was probably a greater cost than leaving it in, since it probably entailed changes to firmware, documentation, and testing procedure, and that their decision had to do purely with product line differentiation. The sensor data is there already -- it could probably be made available with nothing but a firmware update.
But I couldn't care less what Canon's marketing strategy is. I simply want RAW capture in high end digicams, and expect it from Canon, hence the disappointment. And if they no longer consider me in their target audience, I will gladly return the consideration. I can't believe it matters much to Canon either way in overall profitability, from the perspective of this single camera or from that of their overall product line, which is what makes it an extra slap in the face.