Used as a jpeg-replacement it seems to offer too little at too high a prize.
Add to this that the most demanding customers are probably using raw anyways.
That sounds right: JPEG and TIFF are ubiquitous and between them meet most people's needs ... and those what want more go for raw.
And there is no commercial motive to drive JPEG2000 adoption, whereas several other recent alternatives have big corporations behind them while being "open" in the limited sense of the format definitions being published and usable free of license fees.
1. Microsoft has had its "HD Photo" format adopted as the JPEG-XR standard, with a promise of fee-free patent licensing, and is adding support for that to its software. JPEG-XR does not use wavelets like JPEG2000, but has the option of a two layer system of 4x4 and 16x16 blocks, which achieves some for the wavelet virtues without the memory bandwidth needs of the inherently global wavelet transform.
2. Google is pushing yet another alternative, WebP, but maybe just for web-page display.
3. As someone said, hardware support for H.264 is becoming common, and one trend these days is that video drives technological changes more than still photography, so maybe the attraction of full still-quality frame grabs from an H.264-intra video will favor that format.