Quote - SM's WM approach is not built on an "industry standard" but it is built on the idea of progression from what already existed in traditional rigging (spheres and whatnot).

Unlike DS, which holds two dissimilar systems (traditional versus triaX) but does allow conversion in one direction (traditional to triaX), Poser allows easier hybridization and doing things like using traditional rigged objects on a weight-mapped figure or the other way around and mixing traditional and weighted in the same figure or articulate object.  I find that beneficial in Poser's case, others may have a different opinion on that.

DS supported the cr2 (etc) format because it was initially designed as a Poser alternative.  So without that support, at the time, you'd have a Poser customer base and a competing "clone" without content.  Cr2 was supported out of necessity, don't you think?  The analogy really has nothing to do with two different approaches to weight mapping in two different programs.

By Poser adding the code, it still means SM adopting the DAZ way of doing it, while both have their own systems.  Regarless if it has happened or not, keeping up with TriaX doing this in 4.1 or that in 4.3 or the other in 5.0 still means that there is pressure to keep up with production cycles of a different, competing company.

You could always offer a Poser-native version of your figures (out of the box), but I would guess (and would find it reasonable) that it doesn't really fit into long term plans.  You have goals and a focus.  Same exists on the other side of the coin, I would expect.

And yet, unlike the CR2 format, the DSON format has had only one change since Poser 8 was released. The analogy is sound, it is simply how a figure is defined.  Also note that the CR2 format, as it existed in Poser 8, as it existed in Poser 9 and as it exists in Poser 10 is not sufficeint to define Genesis, or Genesis 2. So no, the offering of a Poser Native version of Genesis or Genesis 2 is not possible unless Poser supports DSON.