You present no data points to support your OPINION, yet ask (demand) data points to demean opinions you do not believe in.
Perhaps you don't read other photo forums or even the Adobe UtoU forums? Cause there are comments and complaints on nearly a weekly basis from users aking why they can't use version X of ACR or LR or even another 3rd party converter on their NEW camera. I suspect this is a more common complaint than "my prints are too dark". If you wish, I will spend some time linking to various forums where the above complaints are being voiced. I'm kind of surprised that you're not hearing this complaint...
If you read through the posts here, and other threads on similar DNG discussions, you will see that those who do not support your view do not hate DNG or Adobe....they just do not agree with you.
That they don't agree is clear. WHY isn't. Why anyone should have to suffer incompatibilities with new camera generated raws but not JPEG has not be expressed by 'your side' of the argument. Or how a proprietary format is in our best interest. I'm still waiting....
You believe there is a problem in need of a solution. Not all see it that way.
Here we agree! I don't find it a problem as I expressed because it's been a few years since I purchased a new camera. Are you suggesting that there is no issue considering the following facts (please dismiss these facts if incorrect):
1. Every new proprietary camera file system requires all 3rd party converters to get said data files and update their software? Yes or no?
2. Until such time, anyone else with said camera system can't use that software and in fact can only use the manufacturer's converter. Yes or no?
3. While those of us without such cameras are not affected, some of us feel their pain, have undergone this problem at one time and don't see a single reason why the camera makers can't fix this by either spitting out a 3rd option (DNG or open raw format) or just creating new raw files that behave just like the old ones in terms of software accessibility.
For every person who whinges that they have t wait for RAW support for their camera or, good forbid, upgrade to get support, there are (in MY OPINION) just as many or more that understand the delay/cost and can live with it.
Why oh why should they? I've still waiting on an answer. It's like going to a restaurant with 7 people and 3 are served their food while the others have to wait. You think that's a sign of good service or a company that cares about their customers?
BTW...you gun debate argument is a poor analogy. Are you know going to say the Nikon/Canon are the NRA....actively buying of Senators to kill any chance Adobe has of making DNG a success....come on now :-)
Maybe it is. But what I see in both cases is this argument that:
1. Unless a fix helps 100%, it's not worth doing.
2. If it doesn't affect me personally, I don't care.
3. Politics can't be affected in a direction people want when those people are vocal and don't accept the status quo.
Explain to me and others why we as consumers should allow this behavior to continue? Or how it's in our best interest? When Canon or Nikon give away camera bodies or sell them at a reasonable price, maybe I'll accept having to wait to use the software I prefer on my