a P&S is more than adequate for 91% of users (or more)

For most people, they want a (low cost) snapshot camera that fits in their pocket (with as many mega pixels as they can get). NO DSLR fits that bill.

Then there is the complexity of having to learn something about photography...

Most digital camera users are not interested in DSLRs or even the ability to control exposure, shutter speed or aperture. They just want to point their camera at the subject (usually each other) and get an acceptable picture - whatever the conditions. Hence all the fancy modes to second guess what the user wants, such as face recognition.

Only more serious photographers are interested in taking control.

Cheers

size has always been the issue for DSLRs with clunky bodies, shaky mirrors, loud shutters, and heavy lenses; in the digital age they get even more intricate with myriad of controls enough to intimidate even the non novice; time for manufacturers to think small and simple like the upcoming EP-1 for example ...cheers ;-))

I don't think that the percentages were any different when only film cameras were available. Just look at all the different film sizes and types. Instant, 135, 110 etc, all of these were developed for, although not used exclusively by, the casual user.

I agree with Rex that for most people, most of the time, a P&S is more than adequate. It is for the "out of P&S parameter" shots that the DSLR comes through... and all too often even the DSLR can't handle the shot you are after. You have to be a motivated enthusist to invest in and use a DSLR.

Whilst many people may well be tempted to buy a DSLR, I would guess that the convenience and/or compactness of the camera bought, plays a larger part in the choice of what camera is purchased, than we like to admit. For some people the allure of buttons, menus and lens interchangability, is just too tempting to forego. I would cite Leitz's RF film cameras as a prime example of this, due to the sparseness of the controls available, which for many of these users, is the greatest lure to purchase, maybe because they feel such a camera does not get between them and the image they are taking. Obviously the quality of the product is another factor, but when one considers 'how much more' one can get elsewhere (and probably of almost the same levels of build quality - though not the same materials) for the same amount of money, logic would say that it is surprising that there is still a market for such a product.

No, I am not a Leitz owner, but I can certainly understand the pleasure gained from honing one's technique to the point where the shutter, apeture and focussing controls are the only ones I need, or, the case of the 'Point and shoot' qualities of a fully automated camera, which doesn't 'get in the way' of 'connecting' to a much greater extent with with what I am photographing, is a very tempting alternative to all the bells, whistles and attendant bits and pieces that come with a DSLR.