The lossy compression schemes used to be pretty simple, so they're a fast and easy way to reduce file size quickly, as older low-end cameras didn't have a ton of memory (costs money, y'know, and a modern camera has a few GB of RAM nowadays) or sometimes didn't support the newest/fastest card standards. In terms of IQ there is rarely a difference.

Most cameras offer lossless compressed raw these days, some (e.g. the low-end Nikon Zs, and also the flagship Z9) don't even have uncompressed raw anymore, only lossless compressed or a choice of lossy options. Much to the chagrin of some people, a particular Youtuber especially, who make a huge deal out of using uncompressed raw. The person in question doesn't understand what the word "lossless" means and claims there's a difference between losslessy compressed raws and "true uncompressed" raws.

I think compression is done by default because it speeds up picture taking immensely. My understanding is that there's a buffer that holds recently shot pics while they're being written to the SD card. Clearly, if you use compression, you can fit more pics in the buffer, allowing more consecutive snaps before the camera locks up for a bit.

Why it's lossy instead of lossless, I do not know. My guess is that lossy compression allows them to get more compression, and hence improve their effective buffer size for advertising purposes. I think 90% of the time this is a good trade-off. You can view some example artifacts here: https://stephenbayphotography.com/blog/sony-raw-compression-....

[Note that the author mentions being able to access uncompressed raw on his Sony after 2015, but it's a pro-level model. For the amateur models I believe there's no such option.]

Obviously, if you're trying to make them happen, you can do it, but for pics of your kids/pets/plants/etc. in normal daylight situations it shouldn't be a problem.

Still, as a technically minded person, it's infuriating to me that I can't access the original data.

I used to work for Blackmagic Design in the BRAW team (yes, technically not RAW, Red somehow got a bullshit patent on the compression of RAW data that they defend aggressively).

There was definitely an R&D cost associated with developing the libraries to read/write that format, and additional QA steps required when implementing them, but no additional hardware was needed (it actually required less on-hardware processing to write to RAW).

If a company has RAW support on one camera but not another - especially for still photos, it is 100% a market segmentation strategy.

It's more a product segmentation decision.

Casual photographers are fine with just using OOC JPEGs and apps like Apple or Google Photos. They aren't paying for Lightroom or Camera One and worrying about the sensor's dynamic range or ISO performance.

Also using RAW especially on higher megapixel sensors requires your entire stack to be more expensive. Computer needs to be fast with lots of hard drive space. You need a UHS-2 card reader as well as 300Mbps cards etc.