It is not uncommon for technology-based products to reach a point of 'developmental maturity,' at which there is no reasonably achievable advance possible at anything close to a reasonable cost. It is very possible that digital cameras are approaching the point that there is not a meaningful "next great thing." An objective look at the D850, for instance, reveals that despite the great wave of hype and excitement that accompanied its release, there really is not any earth shattering advance over the D810. Yes...there are some very nice new features and some incremental performance improvement, but without the frenzy and marketing momentum, there was really not a rational justification for very many people to spend $3400 to replace a D810.

Disclosure: I have a D850 that I added as a second full frame body to accompany a D810. I like it quite a lot. But without the need for more operational flexibility, there would have been no real motivation to ditch the 810 for the 850 at that level of cost.

The point is that by any reasonable measure, digital photography is either at or quickly approaching a very real technological plateau. Half of folks here proclaim loudly that newer, more capable cameras don't make any difference, and I'll bet that most of the other half couldn't provide a reasonable list of innovations that they would like to see (and be willing to pay for) beyond what they own today. The rational truth is that the "new" mirrorless products do not represent a tech revolution, but rather a simple incremental evolution which actually favors the manufacturers by simplifying their manufacturing processes, reducing their costs, and providing an opportunity to try to bump up prices. Whether it is working is very much debatable. I have seen unsold mirrorless cameras on the shelf at every camera store where I shop for a number of weeks. That means that the initial frenzy has died out much faster for these models than for the previous couple of rounds of new SLRs. In addition, there is already downward pressure on the prices of these models, again very much sooner than for previous rounds of new camera introduction.

To me, the message is clear, and I have stated it here before. Instead of bemoaning the situation, we all need to be promoting our hobby and working to bring new practitioners in to it. It would help a lot if we worked together to promote and encourage new photographers, have patience when they ask questions, and bring them along with us. Young ones are best, but any new photographer expands us as a group and also helps expand the market for manufacturers.

"Young ones are the best" last year I gave my 13 year old granddaughter my D90. At first she had an interest. She took pictures and used her fathers LR to edit some pictures and she seemed to be interested in the process. Then she turned 14 and she got her first cell phone. The camera is now who knows where.
Young people and young families are not going to schlep around all the "stuff" needed for a DSLR. They will whip out the cell phone take the picture/video and send it along. They and their audience are not going to spend the time to be critical of the picture and waste time talking about depth of field or ISO blah....blah.
The cell phone takes a very good picture. Everyone is happy and they have moved on. For those of us who use DSLR's and somehow think we are special that ship has sailed.
"

Perhaps even take it one step further and actively encourage the cellphone picture takers, using a cellphone as a stepping stone on the better things?

Some are never going to convert - and a quick thrash around YouTube is enough to understand that there are some truly fine masterworks taken with cellphones - but others will, perhaps.

If not, the photography hobby will continue to die at an accelarating rate. More people than ever before take pictures, just not with our kind of gear.

Not necessarily - people of all ages and walks of life are using cellphones seriously and less seriously. The vast bulk of them will buy new cellphones but will never upgrade (in the sense of increased technical capability) beyond buying ever-improving phones. Bear in mind there is now a 50Mp phone available.

Seems to me that "way back when", say around the 60s & 70s, there were effectively two channels. And those who took pictures at all were relatively rare as for quite a segment of the population processing was considered expensive, a luxury. Often, taking a photo, even a snapshot, was done very carefully due to the lack of a delete button.

Channel 1: Kodak Instamatic or similar, then a rangefinder (Zeiss Ikon, Voightlander etc), and more recently a film P&S and on to digital P&S. Very casual use. 99.9% of the picture takers want simplicity.

Channel 2: Kodak Instamatic or similar ---> eventually to SLR as a more serious & complex hobby.

Obviously this leaves out the pros who were and remain a miniscule percentage of the picture-taking world.