RED makes only professional cameras, so I don't see what that implies for the majority of the market. All other mainstream electronic devices have become less modular, less upgradable.
The comment about RED was part of a side discussion about the future of the enthusiast/pro camera, based on my suggestion that the sensor might become interchangeable in a future system camera to reduce the need to produce annual upgrades to the entire camera (reducing R&D and tooling costs, among other things - cheaper upgrades/longer useful life justifies a higher initial selling price, etc.). That goes back to the modularity of the old Nikon F, where pentaprism, ground glass, and film back were interchangeable as well as the lenses. (And the Nikon F's modularity was a throwback to the view camera...)
In a real sense, film was also an "interchangeable" part of the "system" - different emulsions for different needs. Why not offer a variety of sensors, some with larger photo sites for lower noise, others with higher resolution, Foveon, etc.?
Modularity always costs more than integrated manufacture (echoes of the complaints about minimally-modifiable Macs). We certainly paid more for quality of manufacture and materials, but we also paid for "flexibility" many of us barely used. We all bought additional lenses, but it was far less common to buy motor drives, 250-shot film backs, additional ground glass screens, waist-level viewfinders... TTL metering, if you wanted it, was built into the pentaprism (I upgraded the Photomic T prism to a Photomic FTn due to liquid damage to the meter electronics... sound familiar, iPhone owners??).
I was suggesting a way the enthusiast/pro manufacturers might adapt to a world where P&S was not a significant support to the pro/enthusiast business.
I should note that, back in the heyday of the Nikon F, Nikon, Canon, and their like were not making mass-market P&S cameras. They catered almost entirely to enthusiasts and pros, because Kodak "owned" mass market photography (as they had since George Eastman invented the concept). If you wanted something better than a Brownie or Instamatic, you were almost by definition an enthusiast.
The P&S market that we've been discussing really began with digital, with the camera makers attacking Kodak at its weak point - its reliance on film and processing revenues. "Buy our camera and you have unlimited free film!" And, of course, the rise of the internet meant "No/few prints, too!"
High end makers like Nikon, Canon, Pentax, etc. didn't enter the digital P&S market at the start. They moved into new territory based on the value of their brand names, proven consumer appetite for digitals, and the availability of sensors good enough to compete with film.
If you look at things from a long enough perspective, the digital P&S market we're eulogizing could be considered a transitional blip in the history of consumer photography. The camera makers ate Kodak's lunch, then the smart phone makers ate the camera makers lunch... and so it goes.
You can still buy some from Nikon and Leica, but as a factor in photography they are pretty marginal. But that isn't what Northrup is saying (some folks are gonna use film as long as someone can make film and the chemicals to process it).
