'DNG-back-to-X' or 'reverse conversion'. Do you think it's needed ?

Question

I'm sure this has been discussed before, but I still need to speak my mind
I believe a "reverse DNG converter" is not a convenience but a necessity.
I've come to the conclussion, from what I've observed since I use DNG myself, that having this converter would eliminate the two main reasons I find people still have to not use DNG.
The main fear I've observed is that A LOT of people have the impression that Adobe pretends to lure them into a trap, 'slaving' them to an Adobe format instead of their camera format : just a change of master, but remaining a slave just the same. Their reasoning is 'why change, there are no advantages freedom-wise'.
Added to this, a lack of real/full support of the DNG format in software outside of Adobe reinforces that perception: they feel they're forced to use an Adobe product from the day they start using DNG.
The other one is caused by disinformation : Most people believe they lose data in the process of conversion. This is also reinforced because all non-Adobe software fail to read the propietary info, maker notes, inside the DNG file.
A 'DNG-back-to-X' converter would end the discussion instantly. This would not only ensure them that they can go back at any time they wish, no harm done, but they could test if their data is conserved back-and-forth, finally understanding that no data is lost and that the only problem is software companies not fully understanding/supporting DNG.
They reason often given for not having this reverse converter is technical. I believe it can be done ... if Adobe wants to make a point having it done.
I'm no engineer, but I have the perception that though it may be difficult, they main reason for not having it done is that Adobe feels there's not enough benefit from it and their resources are better employed elsewhere.
With this message I just wan't to expose MY reasoning of why Adobe needs to address this.
What is your oppinion on what I've just said ? Do you think it would be a welcome tool ? Do you think it is technically possible to do it ?
Thanks for reading my poor excuse of an analysis

Answer 1

JimHess:
I use DNG because, apart from the normal metadata cuestion, it saves me from having original and (multiple) final versions of the image. All the edit steps and therefore all the version of the image, can be contained within one single file.
It can do that for Lightroom, and it could do that for any other program that chose to save the processing steps inside the DNG file instead of on an internal database. For me it solves a lot of archiving problems.
BUT I need it to succeed, or all the advantages of using it now will turn into headaches in the future when no one apart from Adobe really supports it.
In your answer I find the same 'barrier against DNG spread' problem I'm talking about. DNG is, in each and every aspect, a better format than any propietary RAW file, and the benefits of having to manage just one format are many ... yet you don't find the need to use it as the main filetype in your workflow.
I believe that, if 'de-converting' were as easy and trivial as converting to DNG, you would indistinctly use any of them. Right now, as you said, have to be convinced to use DNG... because it has tradeoffs.
Being able to convert and de-convert would wipe any tradeoffs and need-to-be-convinced.
Greg Barnett :
I obviously enjoy having better noise reduction and lens corrections too. But that can be done with many other tools.
DNG conversion and de-conversion foundations must be done by the 'fathers' of the format. It can't be done by anyone else, and it needs to be done or DNG will lack a solid and trustworthy roots to grow further.
Any doubt about being a wise move to convert to DNG or not must be erradicated in order to be adopted without remorses, and the most important step is, more important than denoising algorithms from my point of view, to tell everyone - you can trust us with your image, we are TRULY open, we won't held your images hostages, you are free using DNG and here's the proof.