Seems to me it's targeted at the very same people the 5DC was targeted at back in 2005, new FF owners. I was one when I bought the 5DC in 2006 (for AUD$4,200 including 24-105L). I still have it and it is a great camera with good glass (I've since added the superb 70-200L II IS). But let's look at the comparison and then assess whether the Canon hierarchy have dropped the ball as some here suggest.
The 5D was marketed by Canon (and I think generally regarded) as the world's smallest, lightest and most affordable FF DSLR. Seven years on and the 6D is a smaller, lighter, more affordable and more competent DSLR by almost any measure of specification you want to use.
The 5d is 12.8 mp, the 6D 20.2mp.
The 5D processor was a Digic II, the 6D has a Digic 5+.
The 5D body weighs 810g and measured 6x4.4x3", the 6D 770g and 5.7x4.4x2.8.
The 5D shoots continuously 3fps, the 6D 4.5fps.
The 5D's has 9pt autofocussing (with no cross-type), the 6D 11.
The 5D's LCD was 2.5" and 230k pixels, the 6D's is 3.2" 1024K.
5D ISO is 100-1600 (expandable to 50-3200) and the 6D 100-25,600 (expandable to 50-102,400).
5D has exposure compensation of +/- 2 ev, 6D has +/-5.
5D's viewfinder is 96%, 6D's is 97%.
Add to this the list of things the 6D has that the 5D doesn't - video function, liveview, touch screen, HDMI, built-in wireless, built-in GPS. I may have missed things, but the general point is that it is aimed at the same market but offers more to them at a better price (as you would expect).
I understand why some people might be disappointed with the specs, but I think we get a bit greedy some times. Proof, of course, is in the eating but, at this price, I for one will consider upgrading to the 6d from my 5dC once the detailed peformance reviews are in.