So I think Ricku has a good point when he says that they're probably putting just a few too many resources into point & shoots... not only is the market saturated and the consumers are confused, but the market itself is certainly already experiencing some market share erosion to the camera phone -- particularly in the low-end price points.
Implicit in Ricku's comments is the premise that a 5D mark III would be available sooner if Canon were not "putting just a few too many resources into point and shoots".
In the absence of any evidence offered in support of this claim, I believe it's based on at least three fallacies.
The first is that the long product life cycle for pro bodies like the 5D is due to lack of resources. But this is not what drives product life cycles. The product life cycle needs to be short enough to pre-empt slackening of demand or falloffs in market share. Product lifestyles are driven by lifecycle management principles, not by whiners on rumors websites.
The second fallacy is that resource allocation for these products is a zero sum game -- that is, the idea that there is a fixed pool of resources to allocate between products -- that is, developing point and shoots requires starving the SLR products. That's only true if the point and shoots are losing money for Canon.
The third is that the manufacturers operating costs are heavily dependent on the number of models. Show us the evidence.
In addition, I think he's off base in the claim that there are an excessive number of point and shoot models. At present, there are no less than 10 different SLR models available, excluding different kit combinations (if that's included, the number would be very close to the 27 for point and shoots).
I'm not remotely interested in super zooms but I'm not blaming them for Canon's failure to align their product releases to my preferred purchase time frame.