I respect the usability of Canon cameras, and how things "just work". But you don't have to have a camera that's 5 years behind tech-wise to have things just work correctly. Even 1 year is an eternity with modern technology, and they're literally 5 years behind in many areas. There's no excuse if something like their sensor tech can't match the d750 from 4 years ago. They make the most money, they have the biggest potential budget. I hope at least the sensor is better.
The insanely weird "they are in the business of making money, not making cameras with modern specs" argument is just wild. Why on earth, as a consumer, would I be in favor of Canon making a boatload of money, vs. making a more reasonable amount of money and spending a little more of that cash to give me a better product? A camera that gives me the stuff other cameras had 3-5 years ago AS WELL as the cool Canon innovations. They certainly have enough money to do so, that's inarguable. I want the best best camera at the best price. If you are a consumer and you're arguing for Canon's bottom line, you are arguing against yourself in favor of a faceless corporation. That is fanboyism at its worst.
We'll see if this is just a 5DIV sensor. We'll see about the price. The announcement is soon. But no one should be satisfied if this turns out to be another significantly sub-par offering. "Canon is in the business of making money" is not a good argument against anyone's disappointment.
The argument isn't - or at least shouldn't be - 'Canon is profitable and that's good for us consumers so don't be disappointed' (although as some point out, if we want them to continue supporting our gear, they need to stay afloat). Rather, it's that a lot of people come onto these forums to bitch about specs and then take it a step further - Canon is doomed if they don't produce exactly what I want! That's when the reality check of sales and profitability comes in. Trying to figure out why Canon chooses to do certain things and not others has to be done in light of what has worked for them in the past. They've been pilloried on forums for years for not being cutting edge enough (however people seek to define that), and they have remained the most successful camera brand.
As for why not be more up to date (if indeed they are not - I don't think it's fair either to say their cameras are 5 years behind, nor that most areas of relevant technology have changed much in five years), well again - if they have remained profitable by not using the latest tech, which is presumably more expensive, then why not continue? If I'm selling cakes for a living, and people buy them whether I use basic flour or fancy flour, why would I cut into my margins unnecessarily?
One last point, they have access to information about their own sales which is not released to the public (such as breakdown by model), and lots of feedback from customers, especially professionals. This is again a reason to think that they provide what they do for a reason - they can get it wrong, but the only measure we have of whether they got it right (from their point of view) is sales. None of this is comfort for someone wanting IBIS, say, but that's not really the point.