It’s logical to assume this, even more so from their perspective. However (I don’t want to drag this discussion but I think it deserves a bit more nuance) I think the biggest point to add would be patent-encumberence. Many of those formats have failed because patent hogs made it clear that they want a piece of that pie. Apple had some leverage to get HEIF licensed at reasonable prices I think because even MPEG realized that they can’t be too greedy. Would love to hear some details on that.
With Apple in the game of HEIF, camera manufacturers saw an opportunity for something in between jpeg and their homebrew RAW format jungle. The fact that HEIF is so similar to hevc came as a bonus and HEVC was implemented much earlier because hdr-4k just eats memory cards if nobody can license RedRAW (the next patent hogs and boy what a laughably broad patent that RED patent is!)
I agree and yet I think that JXL could just be both at the same time. If there were a good compressed version of EXR who is to say that this would not also be adopted to something benign like a browser? x264 and x265 are capture, intermediate and delivery formats too. Not because they are good at that, but because they can be used like that.
I’m not disagreeing with you but just question if that argument “it exists, we have decoders for it, its reasonably better and free of problematic patents” should be the sole argument…that is disguised by that:
because that statement needs the above qualification or else is demonstrably false.
Just have a play with the codecs and different pics here: