Probably (but not from me)
So, you like the comment because it agrees with your similar complaints? And despite all the responses that attempt to explain the technical issues and Mt. Spokane explaining the history (i.e. the short-back focus having substantial value when it was first introduced) you guys just keep reiterating the same complaints over and over like some kind of broken record, it doesn't make sense to you, Canon made a big mistake, Nikon doesn't do it, why is Canon trying to screw me over, etc. etc. etc.
If the lenses use the space taken by the protrusion... then fine. But apparently, they don't (or at least some of them based on prior postings).
So, Canon *could have* (just maybe) retained the EF mount and made some "cheaper" lenses with a smaller image circle. That seems to be what Nikon has done.
Canon could choose to enable some sort of automatic cropping feature that shuts off part of a FF sensor with a crop lens... or not, and let the user mess with it in post.
Doesn't have anything to do with "Canon screwing me over".
But, it could provide a path for APS-C and EF-S users to move into a FF body using the EF-S-type stuff they have, at least temporarily. I would imagine that many would eventually spring for a proper EF lens, because it seems pointless to have a FF body and only use EF-S style lenses on it.
I have read the prior posts.
If it just boils down to a smaller image circle, I don't see the harm in allowing EF-S lenses on an EF body (without the protrusion, of course).
If I didn't like the result, then I could go and buy some new EF lenses.
Seems simple enough.
I avoided buying EF-S lenses because of the incompatibility. I only have the 60mm EF-S, and the rear lens does move into the protrusion space.