Take for instance the 5DmkIII. 22MP in 2012 would NEVER had happen if canon didn't think all it's photographers are closet videographers and made video the first and foremost priority when it started the sensor.
If thats true then explain why the C300 & C500 don't have this video priortised sensor you speak of?
Is pulldown from 18 or 21 MP all that different from 40MP?
Perhaps, and this is just a suggestion, canon didn't deliver a 40MP 5D3 because a) folk don't need it b) r&d would make it even more expensive and c) 35mm lenses just cannot resolve the detail.
Are you jealous that Nikon made a 36MP body for 10MP lenses? Do you want to blame video? Oh but the Nikon has video too!
Here's the thing. Nikon were first with DSLR video. With the D90. Wasn't very good. Canon added it into the 5D2, perhaps as an afterthought. Wasn't very good. Some smart guys cracked the 5D2 and made it good. Canon launched some firmware that made it legitimately very good.
Folk got right into it and bought a DSLR purely for video.
So canon are somehow wrong to cater to folk who'll double or even triple the sales of 5D2s? And wrong to cater for the same folks who'll flock to the 5D3?
Lets not forget, the 5D and 5D2 were pretty pedestrian in terms of speed and AF. The 5D3 solves those problems. What problem, exactly, does a 36Mp sensor solve?
Get a grip and get over it. Video and stills can peacefully co-exist despite what bitter wedding photographers think.