yes, no argument there; I just don't quite understand the need for three distinct 1.6x product lines. Even from the marketing perspective they've forced themselves into corner, imho, because it would be silly to have both a 70D and a 7D. My guess is that forcing this corner was no accident at the time, lets not forget that this decision was made probably 4 years ago.
But while we're speculating... consider that the 7D could be a marketing experiment, to test the acceptance of a premium 1.6x body, which we all recognize the naming convention suggests. 7D was either successful or it was not:
If 7D was successful, it either hurt xxD sales or it didn't. If it hurt xxD sales, then Canon will likely merge the two lines into one, and they have a marketing decision as to what to call it, but odds are that 7D would win. If it did not hurt xxD sales, then Canon has a real dilemma, to effectively position both lines and name them something without conflict.
if 7D was not successful, then they just drop it, and focus on the xxD as the premium 1.6 body. CR -1 here of course I have no data to back this up; just engaging in amusing speculation.
Eh? Think on this for a second. Would you ever write "If the 1Dx hurts 5D Mark III sales, then it is not a success." ?
Of course not. In no way, shape or form would Canon view a sale of a 1Dx over a 5D Mark III as a bad thing. They've upsold the customer to a more expensive model. It's exactly the same with the 7D and 60D. Canon would view the sale of a 7D over a 60D as a success, not a failure.
The mind boggles on what some people come up with to be honest.