But you really didn't answer the more serious points that I made.
Serious points, right. OK, here goes ...
I am not
saying that the 70D and the 7DII are bad cameras. I am also not saying that these particular cameras are non-innovative on the whole. What I am saying is that in my opinion, for Canon, the "crop-frame" sensor DSLR is something that no longer has any place in their line-up. The reason for this is that the camera market has shrunk considerable and therefore it will not be possible to continue supporting two form-factors indefinitely. Many on this forum, you included, have pointed out the increase in cost per product should Canon decide to actually support "crop-frame" cameras with more (actual or equivalent) L
-grade lenses. This is quite true and should be a primary reason for Canon picking a form-factor and dropping the other. The obvious choice would be "full-frame", due to all the best lenses being "full-frame" already.
For the future, once Canon eventually rolls out a "full-frame" camera with an equivalent 20MP "crop-frame" sensor, something like the now rumoured 50MP sensor, then "crop-frame" will be truly dead. Ignoring the cost, ask yourself why would anyone use a 20MP "crop-frame" camera and "full-frame" lenses, when they can rather use a 50MP "full-frame" camera with those same "full-frame" lenses? (Everything else being equal, e.g. AF speed, frame rate, etc., of course.)
As to the cost argument, well ... the really low-end, entry-level market as per ca.2008 has gone over to whatever imaging-enable device is the current fad. This means that the current (ca.2015) entry-level market is from the start a more advanced photographer, basically the mid-level "prosumers" of the previous decade. Yes, cameras will be more expensive for the entry-level models, but the purchasers thereof have for the most part already gone through everything their imaging-enabled phone can deliver and they want more right out of the (camera) box and are/should be willing to pay for it. IMO, for Canon, that is "full-frame" cameras ... with or without mirrors.
Coupled with the above reasoning regarding the cost factor, electronics (should) become cheaper and more capable every year. If not, then whosoever is in charge is definitely doing something wrong. I concede that any particular line of technology always somewhere "hits the wall" and can go no further, but if that happens, then the people in charge should start looking for alternatives or concentrate on something else within the confines of that technology. In the case of Canon and their sensors, for example, if they cannot increase the DR of their current designs, then start figuring out a cheaper manufacturing process (or even an algorithm for fixing dead photo-sites through extrapolation). Anything to keep with the spirit of electronics: more for less. (No, I am not saying I want a 6D for the price of a 700D.)
I think that adequately answers the points you made in your post.