When someone attacks a Canon body, you always resort to raw sales. That'S not very interesting.
Like I said before. Canon's "Answer" to the Nikon D800 (and future D900, and the Sony A7R) will come as a big bulky elephant sized 1D-body, with a price tag that most people can't touch.
Ok, then...but what are Nikon and Sony's "Answers" to the 5DIII, which has outsold the D800 and will vastly outsell the a7R?
Why do people think Canon needs to play Nikon's game? The D800 was Nikon's attempt to play the game by Canon's rules (we'll see your 8-9 MP increase, and raise you by another 14 MP), and Nikon lost.
We would all like to have a perfect, no-compromise body, having all components leading-edge, straight out of R&D, and using most current fab processes. Such a camera would be either unaffordable or unprofitable or both. The reason for the "raw sales" argument is to reiterate, yet again, that all manufacturers make compromises to keep their products profitable (not just the body, but the whole line). Nikon made compromises on the D800 (and D600), Canon makes compromises on their bodies. Those who are willing to accept the D800 compromises complain that Canon didn't make the same compromises (and the reverse is also true).
The "raw sales" argument is to remind you (and all the other D800 salivators) that not everyone will choose the same compromises and, in fact, you may be in the minority. Yes, yes: we can always argue about whether Canon's sales successes are entirely due to marketing, but I find it hard to believe that Nikon's marketing is completely incompetent.
In short, the "raw sales" argument means Canon (and Nikon and Pentax and Sony and...) are businesses who are trying to make a buck, they are not interested in creating your perfect body.
Yes, that's much more interesting than complaining that Canon won't sell a $10,000 "perfect" camera for $2,500.