Originally posted by gazonk
If they're already using iPhoto, they could start using RAW without even noticing, though (except that they would of course notice that (at least heavy) WB and exposure adjustments would work much better than before). And some probably do without really understanding much of what the difference between JPEG and RAW really is.
We imagine using iPhoto as a mini version of Aperture or Lightroom, which can be done to a certain degree, but the "average" user probably uses this package for pre-canned effects, cropping, and minor adjustments like brightness, contrast, etc. Something like a histogram is foreign and unnecessary to them. iPhoto also has a way of managing libraries and groups of pictures and such and I think a lot of people appreciate that. That's how I started using iPhoto a long time ago and that's why moving to Aperture was a natural progression for me.
I think we have to understand that we here on the forum have a very high standard of performance and quality. It's rare, and often misunderstood. Processing RAW is hard and it takes time. We make time because we enjoy the creative process. It's a large part of what makes the image and we love the image - from the moment we see it in our mind's eye to when it appears on the screen / in print. For others the image is just a small part of what could be a larger creative process. So for them, they look for the highest quality in-camera JPG engine available. Those happen to be found in cameras with big sensors. Big sensors have typically been found in big DSLR bodies. This is changing as small bodies get better and better but so are DSLR cameras. I have a feeling that thanks to Sony's recent MILC FF body we'll soon see FF being as common as APS-C is today. And hence, the race between small and large will continue. In the end, everyone will win since technology can only move one way : forward (generally).