I’m not claiming they’re infallible...just that their understand of the ILC market is superior to yours. In this case far superior, as your post makes it quite clear that you don’t ‘get the idea’. But I’ll try to spell it out for you one more time.
If Canon ‘lagged behind the curve’, they’d have lost ILC market share. They didn’t. They chose to stay out of a small market segment until it matured enough to matter to them. ILC comprises DSLR and MILC segments, and since those segments are counted together, favoring advancement in one over the other is not logical for the market leader (conversely, a minor player in the market may choose to focus on only on the segment where the market leader is not heavily engaged, i.e. Sony).
For the past decade, Canon has had just under 50% of the ILC market. When Canon entered the MILC segment with the EOS M line, that segment only represented less than 20% of the ILC market (and the majority of MILCs at the time we’re m4/3). Currently, the MILC segment is close to 40% of the ILC market, and the EOS M series is the best-selling MILC line globally. Meanwhile, Canon has recently launched two successful full frame MILCs (FF ILCs are only a small sub-segment), and they continue to maintain an ILC market share of about 50%. Nothing lost, not behind.
Making sense yet?