P: DNG Converter: Enable JPG conversion

Well, you never know. If it's quick and easy enough, they might surprise us. If it's really critical to your workflow, though, it might be easier on you to get someone to write a script or an extension, or add on to the open source DNG converter itself, than get angry and frustrated because Adobe takes so long to get around to some of these things. There are a lot of "these things" for Adobe to get around to.

Sorry to be the Devil's advocate here, but remember the premises: "Lightroom is capable to convert JPGs into DNG. The DNG Converter unfortunately currently is not.". Seemingly, it is not about some new space travel or new brain surgery technique, it's just about adding some existing feature (e.g. already implemented) to an existing tool. A tool that had it and is more than related to DNG itself! A tool that has a more than 300MB installer for one format!

> Where is Adobe?>

On vacation.

 And I understand you wanting Adobe to undertake the development of this, but we've all wanted Adobe to develop this or that for us, and if we really want it in a timely fashion, with the features we want, we often need to find a 3rd party developer willing to do it for a very reasonable price. Why? Well, because they specialize in that. They're not busy trying to keep several hundred (and more) features working and squashing the inevitable bugs that arise when they add or alter just about anything to an enormous app.

One of the things you pay Adobe to be is an app that plays well with other apps—Adobe's  apps provide a way for lots of different 3rd party developers to make a living providing specialized features for those who need those features. Believe it or not, there are several image editing apps out there who either don't support 3rd party extensions, scripts, and plug-ins, or who do a particularly bad job of it.

Further, the relationship between Adobe and 3rd party developers has to be at least a bit mutual—Adobe doesn't have to provide absolutely every feature known to man at a highly professional level even if 70% of the features are never used by most of the customers, and 3rd party developers don't get their lunch stolen by Adobe the minute someone here says "I want this, and I want Adobe to be the provider."

It's not that  a lot of people here don't understand your asking , and many are even voting for it. We all do some asking and some voting. But you seem very unwilling to look into other sources for something you seem to think is vital enough, Adobe should have done it already. Ask away, but if this is for a large group of photographers from a developer who has created the gold stand for any type of software, perhaps a proper and official proposal to Adobe management ought to be considered. That might speed things up.

Here it's just part of a wish list a mile long from every type of customer. Enough votes, it might make it to the top of the list, but patience is usually required to wait for features that don't broadly apply to most users.

Here we go again. The person requesting this for a large group of photographers is a developer who has created the gold standard software for timelapse production. Where is Adobe?

DNG is an open format. Why not pay a developer or start an Open Source project to create this tool?

Yeah! Me and a bunch of dreamers are customers and we ask this and that, like having Photoshop under Linux. Who cares? Not Adobe. Doesn't matter we pay.
Still, what is the gain?

Nice technical battle between experts. Unfortuneately a little off track in the meantime. I am a dumb customer. The question is not if I need a special feature. I just want it. I am the customer. I pay for all this. And I want a certain feature. It helps me doing things the way I like. 
@Adobe please add this feature !


The secret of the darkness is........ the light !

gun

Indeed John! You beat me to the punch. 

Gunther, this really is a lost cause after 3 years, we've told you why.

This reminds me of one of my favorite Bruce Fraser quotes:
You can do all sorts of things that are fiendishly clever, then fall in love with them because they're fiendishly clever, while overlooking the fact that they take a great deal more work to obtain results that stupid people get in half the time. As someone who has created a lot of fiendishly clever but ultimately useless techniques in his day, I'd say this sounds like an example.

You are absolutely correct about this, I fully admit:

since you don't seem to understand my point - and honestly - you don't need to also

Are you certain Adobe doesn't seem to understand your point too. 

LR can be batch operated to do so. Pretty sure ACR could be too, via PS/Br/PSE.

LR and ACR cannot be batch operated to do so.
I'm not going to discuss this topic any further with you, since you don't seem to understand my point - and honestly - you don't need to also. My intention opening this thread was to reach someone at Adobe.