I’ve written elsewhere that Canon threatening litigation over anyone putting out autofocus lenses in the RF mount is a Bozo move. I can’t fathom how Canon thinks that lawyering up is a positive thing for the RF mount and that this won’t send some customers elsewhere.
But Nikon is being a bit Bozotose, too, just in a different way.
It’s clear that Nikon is following Sony’s lead and licensing the Z-mount to others. Just how far that goes and how much information is being shared by Nikon is unclear, but Cosina (Voigtlander) and Tamron have both posted tiny footnotes on their offerings that specifically says that they’ve officially licensed the mount and information on it, and it appears in China that Viltrox may have, too (or at least has Nikon China's endorsement, given their executives promoting Viltrox lenses). I’ve now heard from multiple sources that at least two other well-known companies have explicitly asked for Z-mount licenses (only one is who you might guess). (I find it odd that Tokina has been introducing mirrorless lenses for the RF, XF, and FE mounts, but generally not the Z mount. Note their recent Reflex lens introductions, which skip the Z mount for some reason, and the fact that Tokina's apparently Viltrox-designed lenses aren't offered for the Z mount, either.)
And yet, other than one accidentally-slipped-out statement from a Nikon executive, I’ve not seen Nikon figure out that this is a marketing advantage and should be promoted. Even a bone simple statement from Nikon—“Nikon authorizes Z-mount licenses on a case-by-case basis when approached”—would be a blast at Canon and steal a few users away. Sony marketing doesn’t exactly trumpet the licensing of their mount, but they openly talk about and acknowledge it, and that worked wonders as it made the rounds of the fan base.
The Japanese just don’t seem to understand how to optimize ecosystems. And yes, interchangeable lens cameras with hot shoes and multiple other connectors are at the heart of an ecosystem. You can encourage and develop the ecosystem to grow, or you can ignore the ecosystem’s true needs and make it less hardy than it could be.
Let me state it as simply as possible: healthy and strong ecosystems sell more product at the heart of the ecosystem.
My guess is that in all three big camera companies, Canon, Nikon, and Sony, the separate camera and lens groups have political squabbles over mount licensing. Not just whether to do it, but whether to promote it, too. Appoint me boss at any of those companies and I’d issue an edict: promote the external growth of the ecosystem every way we can, and if parts of the company find that they’re now competing with an external organization in part of the ecosystem, make your damned products better than the competition. Win, win, and consumer win.
Updated: to clarify statements; added Tokina comment
