Way off base
Who said anything about paying this much for a camera? Article is about photo management programs, not professional editing.
Most of us are using a camera that cost $200, or more likely LESS than $100
Even more to the point, due to economy, I bet most of us bought them a year or two ago.
Sure you make a valid point for the professionals, you are only as good as your weakest tool in the chain when it comes to media reproduction (sound pictures) of any type. However if freeware tools are as good, no reason to waste money.
I imagine not only does the average digital camera user not use RAW format, they probably aren't even aware its there, or what it is.
Try selling RAW to a person in layman terms:
Ok, so you take photos this way (RAW), and they will take more space up on your camera, so you can fit less pictures in there. Then you have to copy them off the camera, and convert them to a new format if you want to share and send them out in email. Oh and they will take more space on your laptop, etc,etc.
Oh,, but they will allow you to have visual elements you can't see, that MAY allow you to lighten up some shadows and make that one picture look better.....Oh and you'll need a software program that cost twice what you paid for your camera to properly edit them....
Ogg faces a somewhat similar problem.... better isn't better if it is not easier as well.
Competing formats have to be no extra steps, just as easy to use, or kiss goodbye to unwashed masses.