I must admit I find this all very confusing.

1. How many of these cameras will Nikon sell? 250,000? and they won't get more than $50 out of the $100 which is 12.5 million dollars...............absolute chicken dung to an outfit like Nikon.

2. There are Nikon plugins to Photoshop?

3. Given that one photo technician can support several photographers there will be far fewer copies of photoshop sold than Nikons

4. Adobe sell software Nikon sell cameras and accessories..........they are not natural competitors

5. Product wise I would say that photoshop has a much stronger market position than Nikon cameras. So why should Adobe care? they should be more worried about all the pirate copies of their software around the globe, like sensible software companies are? They are not seriously going to make any more money by supporting two particular models of camera.

6. The use of both products is not mutually exclusive, and Nikon face far more competition than Adobe?

So, what to make of it all?

A. Nikon seem to have adopted a strategy intended to protect the reputation of their high end products. This is a little strange as one would expect the photographer to be the first one to look at the pictures and form an opinion. He is unlikely to use photoshop, as that is a technician's tool.

If the technician screws up loading the images or Adobe's product was crap, the publisher/editor will blame the photographer, the photographer will blame the technician and the technician will blame Adobe. So in a way Nikon are covering Adobe's a$$?

B. Adobe are behaving like petulant little schoolkids because they have been "denied" something. They should really grow up and concentrate on their core business specialities. This is peripheral, at best.

That is my view wearing my business analyst/accountant's hat (and don't as me if it is black or white )