I'm not saying that plonking a 1ds next to a dm22 is going to be a hands down win every time to the dm22, but the point is that its a different approach and for some people and some uses it is better.
My point is still that when people describe the "allure" or "feeling" of MF, gut or otherwise, I can't help but think there's nothing concrete to MF's credit over 35mm, besides 100mm+ lenses being considered close to normal. There's been a huge gap in quality between APS-C and 35mm "full frame" sensors for years, but the medium format companies don't have the systems integrated, or (from what I understand) designed - even, according to a number of folks, the R&D put in the sensors themselves - well enough to do much more than keep pace with 35mm cameras in terms of image quality, let alone in features. True 16-bit? Man, feels like the early 1990s again.
In any case, slow is not the goal of photography. Instantaneous is. If I want slow I plonk on the TS-E and compose through the viewfinder (curse you, Canon, for not letting it focus past infinity!), and focus with Live View - that's plenty slow for me. I almost did that tonight in the dark, though I just slapped the focus to infinity and bracketed some shots. Of maybe 95% of my photography recently (which is pretty non-serious at this point), a third are still life (stuff for eBay, a frog sitting on a chair outside), and two thirds are straight architectural / landscape. So yeah, I do slow already, and I don't like slow as a goal of technique - being an artist means, to me, that you sometimes get a flash of inspiration and by the time I've fetched my camera enough time may have passed that the moment to frame what I've seen is gone. I don't like fiddlefarting around with the autofocus - sometimes yes, sometimes no - on my T1i, and I don't like the thought of spending a hundred Benjamins on a system which it is not clear has a system as up to date, just because Live View has become standard and I should manually focus. I would rather have the option and keep my money. Older methods shouldn't be forced in any situation. (I'm sure I'm showing off my MF ignorance a fair deal here; I'm trying to be balanced, but I've seen and heard enough to be fairly certain that MF systems are years behind 35mm ones, in specifics and in general.) To be sure, I agree with the "start simple" method of learning photography (95% of all my pictures have been done with two primes, the TS-E and the 50mm f/1.4, which I shot exclusively when starting out; just as importantly, I started with a relatively simple camera), but that's something different.
We can talk about studio photographers, but a 35mm camera gives somebody an edge in freedom of motion. That is a monetary proposition. Who wants to be stuck inside when you can be outside, anyway? Being stuck to a studio - tethered to a computer like the bad old days of scanning backs - immediately puts such a system at a disadvantage in locking out event / wedding photographers, who are very close in some ways to a studio photographer (imo) and more likely to do have business interests in both fields. If anything I think it's more likely for a person to be a traveling photographer with a studio business on the side, rather than the other way around. There isn't any reason there cannot be a camera that suits their needs in the studio and in the field.
The big thing for everyone here is that whilst there has been a degradation of the pricing in low and mid range dslrs there hasn't really in the 1 series. Having the pressure of MFD will either force a price shift or it will force some serious evolution of the cameras.
I think the evidence is pretty clear that DSLRs have cut the knees out from under the MF market, and now they're working on the stumps. A $3K premium for no apparent benefit in functionality on old-fashioned bodies that seem (almost channeling Ken Rockwell there) based on 20 year old designs and late-adoption leftovers from DSLR design, and which furthermore don't really seem to provide knockout quality (on average) compared to 35mm format with all the new bells and whistles, doesn't seem a good overall investment to me. Medium Format does more than respectably well in DxOMark, but when cameras (or I should say backs) are released that infrequently, your investment and competitiveness with cameras that are much more up-to-date are endangered by the end of the term more than if you had bought a cheaper DSLR body.
Simple economic sense would seem to validate your claim that this pressure - and expanded options - is good for the market, but consider: MF buyers recently seem to have been faced (from what I gather) with the most uncertain future in assured supplies of equipment, with most MF manufacturers going out of business yet still likely employing experts in the field who would be assets to 35mm development. Who wants to buy into MF when it's uncertain that the manufacturer will survive from this year to the next?
There was a lot of clucking in certain quarters about video on DSLRs, and there still are many problems with it, but people are putting it to good use, and finding new excitement and new blood in photography than ever before (and the numbers on the explosion of EOS DSLRs confirms this). The 35mm manufacturers seem to be inundated with requests for new features like never before, and compromises may start to become fewer as the 35mm market is trending towards professionals and enthusiasts. In some ways it seems like a continuation of the split between point and shoot 35mm cameras and SLRs from some years ago; a 35mm SLR never really could be underspecced compared to a point-and-shoot, or overspecced compared to any other 35mm camera; the major differences mainly were the results of mechanical differences, like interchangeable lenses, film winders even.
But now even 35mm format cameras are fighting to stay relevant when even point-and-shoot cameras can have sophisticated movie modes and other features - cell phones are following quickly. You don't need a winder anymore to take rapid bursts of pictures. I think the energy is coming from the bottom of the price range on up, and certainly price competition follows as well. Canon whet my appetite with the T1i, and now they've got me suckered into looking at upgrading already. This is what we've seen play out with the D7000 versus the 60D: a "lower tier" camera introduction was seen popularly as a victory against a the latest offering in a repositioned formerly semipro line. I have argued against too much focus on the cyclical updates causing people to spend too much money on cheap cameras, but at least users have the option of setting their own update cycled. You can update every year if you need to (and have a plan to justify it, like selling the old model) or you can update every three. This is pretty good compared to most MF systems where your next upgrade will be never, because the manufacturers have closed up shop.
Sorry for the extreme length of the post, and for anything unfair I said.