What is this insistence on Canon creating a camera without video? I can understand stills photographers frustration at R&D effort into DSLR video that could be spent on other features (but don't forget the extra revenue that Canon makes from video users), but to not have a feature in one camera in the range that is in all the others seems a bit daft. Video is not a feature that I use, but why would I object to something that is free? Does an extra switch/button that you don't use really bother you that much? You must seriously have a grudge against the almighty about the male nipple thing! 
Well, that is the crux of it... the feature is not 'free'. Not only does it take its own development and testing, but you get an exponential testing issue when you have multiple modes (thus the testing phase gets significantly more expensive), not only does it mean that design decisions are informed by the need to make it 'good' in multiple modes... but it also means limited silicone on the camera is dedicated to major features that the consumer does not have an interest in, which could have either been dedicated to still features OR not been included in the body at all.
Canon got a real hit out of the hybrid camera design, but now they have extended it to all their still cameras, resulting in a product line that is pretty much 'you can have dedicated video, or video and stills, but not stills', which says a lot about where their steering commity is thinking... and that tends to trickle down through the design process.
The point is, design decisions come at a cost, and some people would rather have the thing they are interested in being the design priority for at least SOME bodies rather then be in conflict with other requirements.
Poll