I don't think Canon did this to make people buy the higher models, but they did it based on what they perceive that market segment to use most.
In other words (well, my words), if someone is so serious about video that not having 24p in the 90D makes them change systems and spit bile, then they would not be using the 90D for video anyway, especially as the only real complaint seems to be doing serious video editing across platforms.
Canon explained long ago that their research shows most people take video to supplement their stills and to post content on social media. NOT to make award winning documentaries.
So looked at from that POV, it bemuses me why people are getting so worked up about all this.
Well, I'm not worked up about it because I gave up on Canon producing stills/video hybrid bodies with great quality video long ago.
However (and although all this talk about licensing fees and cost of 24p is all very interesting), common sense tells us this is just another way Canon will continue to segment their stills bodies, leaving 24p to the higher end models since they would like people who are into film and video to spend more money to purchase these.
Nothing wrong with a company trying their hardest to make money for shareholders by differentiating their product lines, but this is why working, low-budget filmmakers who purchase stills bodies are all using Sony models now like the A7sII (soon to be A7sIII) and A7III, A7R, etc. Panasonic is also huge but I see those being used less on set. It's clear Canon is content to sell lenses to this crowd (many of whom still adapt) and has no interest in fueling it with serious video in their lower-end stills cams. I'm plenty happy with my Fuji X-T3 and still have my Canon lenses for more serious work when I need to rent a RED.
By the way, plenty of Canon stills cameras were used as B cameras and sometimes main cameras on award-winning documentaries and other productions, but I think this will be less and less as time goes on. No, Canon's not doomed, but they're certainly not following their own motto "Imagine the Impossible" with regards the video features on their stills bodies. It's too bad, because without 24p, younger people starting out with Canon for stills won't discover the magic of that frame rate, which is the basis for most of the history of cinema. And filmmakers just starting out will certainly continue to gravitate to Sony (or other) bodies and get into other camera ecosystems.
So, overall, not the smartest move by Canon except for the money and product segmentation which is a safe, yet predictable and uninspiring choice. This certainly won't win them any new friends or build a new halo around their brand.
I much prefer to shoot in 60fps over all other frame rates.
