DdeGannes wrote:
Once upon a time, I helped engineer some embedded system firmware which was 100% proprietary, no OS (not multi-threaded). After a decade, we wrote a proprietary (multi-threading) OS for it and redid the hardware (still custom/proprietary, but mostly PC compatible) - software (firmware really) could take advantage of a limited subset of Win32 API (and consequently various 3rd party libraries). After another decade, we replaced the OS with an embedded version of Windows XP (and cranked up the memory). Software (*or* firmware, depending on config) now has access to full Windows API.
Now, firmware development for such custom hardware is not much different than software development for a desktop.
In fact, we have a desktop PC version of the hardware which will also run the "embedded" (read: NOT embedded anymore, in such context) software from disk.
So it's kinda like: pick the hardware you want (custom proprietary, or standard PC) and load the (same) software from chip or disk, depending...
Bottom line: Adobe would not have to become a camera maker, they could just become a camera software (firmware) maker. If hardware (camera) maker develops a "BIOS/lo-level firmware" interface which conforms to spec, they can just drop in the Adobe camera firmware on top - for a fee (royalty).
Thus each company continues to do what it does best, and everybody wins: both companies and users...
PS - If I'm dead when this happens, please tell everyone you heard it first from Rob Cole in the Lightroom forum 
.
Cheers,
Rob