Did you even read my post? While they could, I argued that they would not make a APS-H lens. They would/could make consumer grade lens like the patents we saw posted today, but have a sensor that is cheaper because of size/yield.
The wafer sizes are industry standards. At the time this canon white paper came out (
http://www.robgalbraith.com/images/canon_full-frame_cmos_white_paper.pdf) the standard was 200mm wafers, or roughly 8 inches. The industry has upgraded to 300 mm wafers for many computer chips but there are issues scaling up to 450mm with lithography taking too long to be economical. There are different layers added on for image sensing chips so I’m not sure if they have upgraded to those larger processes. The nature of making silicon wafers involves spinning the wafers to ensure a molecule level even surface so they are always circular . I was off in my number for how many aps-c chips fit, canons number was 200. If they made a aps-h sensor the same size as the one in the 1d, they could fit 46 (ie half the cost, other than dev time). If they made them at a 1.4 crop aps-h, it would be up around 80.
Presumably any sensor made for this market would be massed produced the same way as the current dslr aps-c cameras are, from higher end 7d all the way down to the cheapest rebels. Building out consumer grade lenses that are R mount full frame allows a user to upgrade to larger sensor R mount camera at some point in the future. Canon has always tried to artificially segment their markets. Even if they only kept aps-c and full frame they still are going to create r mount versions at lower price points. Even if very very few of their users ever get anything more than the kit lenses, the fact that they could put better lenses on is a big motivating factor in purchases.