This is a frustrating conversation to me, this "wine on a beer budget" analogy, because the analogy limps badly. As others have correctly pointed out, many features are not missing because of cost but because of positioning. Auto-ISO in manual mode, for example, is not missing because of cost.
I understand the importance of positioning and its relevance to profitability. But taken to the extreme it becomes the opposite of competing for a customer's business. It becomes a process of holding back as much value as possible in order to parcel it out in small portions at the customer's expense. Canon, more than any other camera company, seems to think it has enough momentum and market share to focus on maximizing profitability rather than customer satisfaction. Maybe they are right in the short term but I think this will cost them in the long term. I believe Sony, in particular, has the resources to eventually make them pay for this approach.
And this "the 5D was never intended for sports" argument is B.S. I shoot landscapes and wildlife but I'd also like to occasionally shoot my son's football games. It is NOT too much to expect a $2700 camera body to do both. When cheaper Canon DSLR's offer demonstrably superior AF systems, it is positioning rather than cost that is driving design. Nikon is certainly able to put their pro-AF system in a body at a 5DII price.
But let's say price is no object. I should just buy a 1DX, right? No, I don't want to hike 10 miles into the backcountry with a cinder block in my pack. It's not just a question of wanting wine on a beer budget. It's about wanting the right tool for the job.