Regarding updating the AF, history has shown there's no need. First off, Nikon's AF isn't necessarily 'kick-ass'. Just like more MP doesn't automatically make a sensor better, more AF points don't automatically make for better AF. Nikon's systems have never had the high-precision points that Canon offers, for example. More importantly, Canon can look back at sales records. The 40D, 50D, and 60D use the same AF. The 5DII was a huge success, using the same AF as the 5D but with more MP. So who's to say a 5DIII with even more MP and still the same AF won't sell, especially stacked up against a 1D X with less MP?
I know it's not a popular opinion, but don't be surprised to see the 5D's AF reused on the 5DIII, or if not that, a token improvement. If they give it a high MP sensor, compared to the 1D X, they've got to not give it something else. Weak AF, only one Digic5+ so the frame rate drops lower that the Rebel line, some kind of handicap will be there. Pick your poison...
As I've mentioned before in these forums, I believe most 5D MkIIs are owned by amateur enthusiasts for whom it is their only body (other than the old Rebel from which they upgraded). As such, it has to have good capabilities in all types of photography if it is to to appeal to its largest audience. And yet, if internet forums are any guide, a large section of MkII users are often frustrated by its substandard ability to track moving subjects in AI Servo AF. Neuro, you yourself have said in the past how much better your 7D is at tracking.
I'm willing to accept all sorts of compromises in the 5D MkIII's spec but if the AF remained the same, I certainly wouldn't upgrade. AF is simply too fundamental to the camera's overall performance for it to be compromised for marketing reasons and I believe Canon will soon learn this if they leave the MkIII's AF system unchanged.