I think that it is a waste of time discussing comparative budgets, IQ etc as we all have difference budgets, IQ requirements etc.
Canon produce a wide range of equipment to suit everyone - lets thank them for that.
There will be no obligation to move to ff - infact I think 1.3 is the best allround compromise. APS-C will get left behind in the technology race, there moving it further down the price scale.
The good news is that as APS-C becomes just a consumer item then you will see the 7D equivalent become cheaper.
PS For those worried about their 10-22 and 17-55 should compare their prices with the 17-40 and 24-105, you will not find significant difference. I understand there will the the cry about the 17-55 being f/2.8 and the 24-105 being f/4 - however that is of little consequence in the field as the 1.3/ff will be one stop faster and the DOF will be about the same.
Money IS an object ... at least for most of us. :-)
Not counting those who purchased (multiple) 7D for video-use only, I am sure there are many more amateur/enthusiast 7D users with EF-S (or lenses who "upgraded" on the APS-C ladder (from xxD and xxxD) as opposed to semi-pros/pros who bought a 7D as second body to an existing 5D / II and already had assorted FF-capable wide-angle lenses.
Anybody with an APS-C body (7D) and EF-S lenses (or third party APS-C) but no FF-capable ultra-wide/wide-angle lenses has to put quite a bundle of money on Canons table to switch to FF. It is NOT done with cost of a body. I therefore consider it higjhly relevant to point this out.
In my opinion, the potential gain in IQ / creative possibilities does not warrant the cost for most of them. Only a miniscule fraction of all pictures are printed "really large" to see the difference. Large prints aside, most of the APS-C vs FF difference is visible in pixel-peeping mode - if at all.
The current 17-40 on FF (5D II) is definitely no match in terms of IQ to the 10-22 on a 7D. The 16-35 II may be on par - but at 3 times the cost. The 24-105 on FF is also no match to the 17-55 on APS-C. The distortions of the 24-105 at the short end are quite massive. Yes, it can be reasonably fixed in post ... but why bother, if the 17-55 delivers the goods straight away?
But yes, everybodies mileage varies and everybody has to come to their own conclusions regarding APS-C vs. FF.
I totally disagree with your statement of APS-C being "technologically left behind" (any time soon) ... I find it much more likely that FF (DSLR-bodies and adequate glass) will be totally priced out of the (enthusiast) market and therefore become a small niche ... similar to where MF has ended up today.
To me, the technical future of photography is extremely likely to be in mirrorless systems with sensors sized between mFT and APS-C. :-)