Quite correct... P1's refusal to support the system (obviously because their own was much inferior) was another key factor and then Hasselblad decided to stop the CF backs altogether (tearing their own eyes off and letting P1 "alone" in the market to play the "no competition winner")... This all added to affect negatively further on Rollei's marketing position...
But then, there where more stupid decisions made... They got Leaf to supply backs for the system, but only for the HY6... and then Sinar (who also joined the platform) stopped making adapters for the 6008 altogether (which was the same stupid marketing as everything else mentioned before as it both cut additional sales of Sinarbacks, but denied support to the base of Rollei customers too - thus forcing them to abandon the platform).... All and all it all comes down to one Question... "what the YH-6 had to offer over the existing 6008AF?" ...nothing at all! ...only damage!
If (as you correctly bring it up) the "new" camera was of 645 format and 6008 would continue to develop in parallel to it by providing "links" to the new platform via adapters for backs and lenses, its difficult to see how competition could have reacted on a system that would be "miles ahead" for both quality and providing solutions... Let's not forget that competition hasn't "catch up" even today... which is more than a decade without the 6008...
Its funny looking back on this all with the benefit of hindsight. A bit of personal history:
- brought into the Rollei system with 6003 c. 1992, when they had a great intro body/lens package price. Bought a few lenses over the next 8 years.
- got into the 6008 with the Phase P20 back. Worked well enough but was a bit funky for handholding. Big pixels, but low ISO.
- got into the Hy6 c. 2011, with AFI II 7 Demo back.
The funniest part of all this was that the AFI back was from Europe, a demo, and if not sold to me was going back to Kodak (who had bought Leaf) even though it had a non-Kodak sensor. It was clear they were going to stick it in the back closet. They offered the dealer a low value for the demo, which he was happy enough if it was matched -so it was a steal at the time. Still going strong.
The AFD lenses seemed like a decent idea at the time to them.... I wonder (honestly) they were trying to save money by simplifying the lens barrel - a not-so-bright decision in hindsight (I never liked it anyway). Are the AF and the AFD lenses identical? Supposedly not, but not sure either way. I've the 50 and 80 AF lenses and they are fine.
The change from the 6008 to the Hy6 did make some sense. The 6008 was long in the tooth, and the y6 had some cool upgrades. Didn't have the removable handle of the 6008, sadly, as the Hy6 is a bear to travel with, but it has a really cool integrated read-out on the handle with the histogram and lots of other info. Also the mirror dampening on the Hy6 is much better than the 6008, allowing another stop of hand-foldability. Focus adjustment on the Hy6 allows you to dial in your lenses. This makes a huge difference, with a 150 telexenar going from "soft" to "sharp as a tack" using the adjustment.
As to the origins, Erik K. is on the track, but the story is complicated. Jenoptik was involved in the design, but I think they were a subcontractor to F&H, the successor to Rollei. Rollei, F&H, and DHW are all essentially the same players, in the same plant, although with a continuing loss of leadership over the decades. When Mandelmann owned Rollei in the 1990s, he commissioned the Schneider lenses, which are one of the finest sets of lenses (as a group), still. The evolution of that set over the 1990s is a fascinating story in itself, as they explored what Zeiss did and did not offer in their Rollei mounts, and both went head-to-head with Zeiss (40, 50, 60, 80, 150), and also introduced lenses that Zeiss did not have - the 55PC, 90 macro, 150 Apo, 300.
There are many stories about the demise of Rollei/F&H/DHW - I heard one from inside the company about how Rollei was profitable, but had been saddled with debt for other reasons and thrown into bankruptcy. The recent demise of DHW is another matter, as it was a shell of what the company was, with only a couple dozen employees. Yet even that company could have been made to work. The marketing was... abysmal to say the least, and the confusion over Rollei/DHW/Leaf/Sinar staggering.
One story about the Hy6 was that F&H was acting as the umbrella developer, Jenoptik did the work, and the deal was designed around an open platform with Phase, Leaf, and Sinar all signing on. As we know, Phase refused (sadly, for reasons we don't know), and then Leaf and Sinar and Rollei divided up the world market by a complex division of distribution, which caused the confusion and the kiss of death.
And yet... at the end of the day, (five years later) the numbers to make DHW profitable recently were not inconceivable. There were some management issues to be resolved but these did not come to pass. So now, there is a small residual company now from those ashes, who does a bit of repair and maybe a bit of sales.
One other note - in the file of "bright ideas", DHW spent real development money pursuing making a 35mm lens for the Hy6. The money should have gone into manuf/marketing, not designing and trying to make an expensive specialty lens for limited market. All in all a few silly moves can drag any company down.
Timing in these things is key. Rollei spent good money in the early 1990s on digital backs, and was way ahead of their competitors. Their macro options from that time are staggering. But it was all for naught, as they were too early and all that money was lost. That might well be the root of the whole problem, and what we are seeing 25 years later are the final spin-offs of that loss of capital. Same thing almost happened to Hassy too. Remember Leica and the DMR? The early years were brutal.