Let's start with the logic: "I wonder if Canon will reach a kind of "Apple Moment", like when Apple quit spending its R&D money trying to beat Intel on a component (CPU's) and started just using Intel chips like everyone else."
Apple has NEVER made the CPU, The Apple I, II, III used Rockwell 6502's as the base, the Mac's used standard 68000 family (68008, 68016 et al) until the Power series used IBM power PC chips (which have so much power that they were illegal to export - remember those commercials with a mac surrounded by tanks because it was too powerful to export>); the switch to Intel chips lobotomized the Mac's to an extent (there are several things you just can't do with an Intel chip because of it's architecture so Apple has to ignore / block those instructions when using the chip in apple os modes
The OP has NO idea what they are talking about so the logic is an epic fail
The question, rather, is how important is the sensor to the camera - is the camera (now that we left film for digital) no more than an extension of the sensor? At that point the sensor becomes key to product development and - yes - it is best (if you can afford it) to keep it in-house
Going back to computers; IBM set a standard in 1981 with the PC - but by 1985 IBM was number 5 in the PC-compatibles market; the problem was that the only thing IBM actually made on the PC was the l;abel; everything else was stardard parts that anyone else could piece together (some better than others) and most cheaper than IBM; Apple had many non-standard parts (for example Steve Wozniak had developed a way to go from 20 chips to run a disk drive as found on standard S-100 computers to 4 chips, one being called the "Integrated Woz Machine" chip, or proprietary and better architecture).
This is what sensor design is to cameras - you can do much better when using your own technologies if they are better technologies; make your own "woz" devices and Canon has, which is why Nikon had to outosurce - they just can'y afford to keep up with Canon on this.
Here is where your analogy falls apart - IBM went to they PS-2 because they lost their market and were trying to get it back not by making better 6technology but by making proprietary technology. Back in the mainframe days IBM had figured out a way to make money by taking their standards and creating paper :Institutes" as they wrote off the costs of development a second time by "charitable donation". The names of these "institutes" are ANSI (American National Standards Institute) and ASCII (American Standards Conference for Information Interchange). A Company called Control Data joined these and began making IBM-Compatible terminals at a lower price undercutting IBM. IBM sued and lost - once CD had joined these tax dodges they had tjhe right to build terminals with these standards -- so IBM set a NEW standard that was thoroughly incompatible (3270 and EBCDIC) which are NOT better hut different - and a large part of the market migrated, when they needed to upgrade, to smaller but compatible manufacturers - Digital Equipment (DEC PDP computers which were not originally called computers in fear of IBM, Control Data moved into computers, HP, and many others
This is where Nikon is - to a certain extent they can't be the Canon alternative without simply being a different lens mount, they need to offer something significantly different -- but they haven't the money for it. The issue with Nikon is that Canon is 60% of the market, Nikon is only 25% so a much smaller company; sony is in many more markets, essentially dominating video, so sensor technology is necessary to their operations; and (here is where outsourcing works) it is a much more trivial matter to incorporate some of the concept that they developed for video into still camera sensors (for their own (minolta - remember) use as well as for Nikon's with Nikon supplying some of their expertise on their versions but manufacturing exclusively by sony)
In other words the economics of the situation is that Nikon simply can not afford to make it's own sensors AND keep pace with Canon; this is a Nikon issue and has nothing to do with sensor technology - and that is the OP's epic fail, not understanding the problem. You don't understand the computer industry demonstrating a fanboy mentality and then carry that misunderstanding to Cameras like a bad program gone wild Nikon's adopting a more generic way of getting sensors will be their death - it becomes no more than a (industry standard) sensor in a non-canon lens mount; Nikon is now in a death spiral they may not come out of, necessitated by financials; they simply can not compete on the same turf as Canon. Look for Sony to put money into Nikon, then buy the rest of the company and make Nikon the high end of the Sony cameras
While Canon keeps on in their 60% of the market