Check out the entire thread here. This is a quick overview of some of the more intriguing topics covered.
* There are at least 100 different proprietary RAW file formats, and Adobe has to "crack the code" for most of them.
Adobe/Thomas Knoll has to backwards engineer the camera manufacturers format to convert the RAW data. When a new camera appears on the market, (if it's a popular one) it will eventually be "cracked" but not very soon after camera release. For other less popular systems (such as medium format backs), this reverse engineering doesn't happen as the resources versus the number of users doesn't make it worthwhile.
As one member said: "I think Thomas and the camera makers should really sit down and talk this through. It is seriously making me rethinking purchasing new bodies till everyone shakes hands."
* There is no guarantee that the camera manufacturers will support a particular format long term.
"This RAW issue is a big one guys. 7 years after a product is released, the company has no justification other than the goodness of their hearts and customer satisfaction to keep the software running to handle that original data. 7 years ain't that long but it's ages in the digital world. Only until all customers who shoot RAW demand that this issue be addressed, the major manufactures will not only ignore the problem, they will continue each year to produce yet another flavor of RAW data."
"Thinking that all the thousands of RAW-files might not be readable in - let say - 10 years - thats a nightmare. "
* A notion to pursue: Should reviewers ding cameras with no spec for their Raw format?
"Frankly, if I were doing a review on a camera that didn't have support from Adobe due to camera company dragging their feet, I'd knock a point off no matter how good the product was."
In addition, several commented that the Camera manufacturer's Raw processing tools were a "joke".