In any case, any impression of personal attack was unintentional and I extend my apologies.
Accepted, and therefore a shall read the rest of your post.
1. You say you study people/societies/companies/governments: Do you mean professionally (...)? If not, what is the method of observation? What parameters or metrics do you use, for example, to say Canon is clueless about what the market wants. An experienced analyst will have access to the market demands as well as evidence of Canon's ignorance in this case. Do you?
It is okay if you do not know, but to not know and pretend to is not going to work in a forum filled with intelligent people.
I look at what others do, try to determine why they do it, then look whether it succeeds or not. Then, when I see somebody else doing the same that has already failed, I conclude that else isn't exactly thinking.
2. The fact that earth revolves around the sun does not depend on the point of reference. Even if sun and earth are revolving around something, still the statement is true. For example, even though the earth and the moon are both encircling the sun, it is correct to say the moon revolves around the earth.
I said, and I quote, "everything revolves around everything else". It was 100
who unfortunately misinterpreted that to mean that the sun revolves around the earth.
3. Profit margins and stocks aren't equal, but they are connected. In either case you aren't comparing any tangible parameters at all, just blowing hot air, so you should be one to talk!
Yes, they are connected ... only not in the way you connected them. You cannot directly compare the profit margin of Company A to the value of the stocks of Company B, and then draw conclusions based on it.
4. Crippling cameras: ... However, AFMA on Rebels: it is standard for entry level items not to come with luxury extras (yes, AFMA is a luxury that you only need with fast, accurate lenses- on a f/3.5-5.6 zoom it does not matter). When you want regular coffee, all you get with it is cream. You buy a latte for twice the price, you get steamed milk. That's how all companies serve- you pay a premium for premium services. Doesn't matter how much it costs to offer it.
That is a very condescending attitude towards owners of "Rebel" cameras. It is also, IMO, a shortsighted one if you are in the business of selling cameras AND LENSES. Basically, you are excluding an owner of a "Rebel" camera from purchasing an L-prime; from which this person will probably migrate to FF as and when the ol' wallet permits.
It is very interesting when we compare this attitude of removing "advanced" features by certain camera manufacturers with what other companies do. Take, for example, Microsoft and how they are packaging their Office program. Oh, yes, they have various different packages containing different combinations of the programs. But Word is Word, irrespective of whether it is the Student or the Full version. And how many features of Word or Excel does the average user use? I've read figures of 20% ... but it is not the same 20% for everyone. Thus Word is usable by a really wide audience, i.e. big market.
L EF-S prime: Who will an EF-S L prime serve? Every single person who wants to buy a crop camera is either someone who never plans to upgrade and will be happy with kit lenses OR has an eye on upgrading in the near future. The former do not care about primes, and the latter will benefit from buying FF-compatible lenses. And you must agree, Canon has brought out excellent non-L primes for very reasonable prices (ok, eventually reasonable). A friend of mine, quite well off, didn't buy the 35/1.8 because it wasn't part of a kit. Even though she specifically wanted to shoot low-light images of her toddler. She settled for the 50/1.8 just because it is cheaper. So, where is the market for an L EF-S prime?
Are you not now doing what you are accusing me of doing: basing a statement of fact on a single person? But that aside, yes, "eventually reasonable" because nobody bought them and Canon HAD TO LOWER the price to get units moving off shelves.
Also, really, not everyone aspires towards a FF camera ... well, at least not until Canon gets the pixel density up to the same as their current APS-C sensors.
5. You cite some random companies- does that imply trendsetter-based marketing is the usual strategy. Yes, it is occasionally applied (under the situations I mentioned), but generally marketing strategy is very conservative and incremental. Even then, your examples show nothing. How about one single proper illustration of the concept (there are many examples out there, I just want to see if you know what you are talking about).
One single example, huh? How about the fashion industry? Who sets the trends? Definitely those folks at Cannes, the Oscars and, in Europe, of the royal families. Who does not set the trend? Sods like me who wear functional clothes ... usually mud encrusted and grime smeared.
6. You use macros and telephotos and yet say the two f/2.8 zooms serve everyone. Good one, I think I shall stop wasting my time arguing with you at this point.
The point of debate was that Sony only has four lenses for the FE-mount, but Canon has a gazillion and one. My point was simply that of all the available Canon lenses, those two (the 24-70mm and the 70-200mm) are the lenses most recommended BY MEMBERS OF THIS FORUM to others seeking advice on purchasing a lens (of the L-zoom-type). So, the deduction is that if everyone recommends them, then, on the assumption that they also actually own them, those two lenses are the lenses that suffices in most consumers' needs.