I disagree. If you are going to compare lenses, you should compare them based on the price to the consumer of the most current comparable model. Going back nine years when you have a one-year-old release is cherry picking the data. Mt. Spokane acknowledged it was an oversight and we've moved on.
You can choose to compare it however you want to, but from a business analytics perspective you're comparing the tail end of a development cycle to the ramp up of a new one, which is a sin. I don't know who you, or Mt. Spokane are, or what sort of work you do, but I'm glad you've moved on... I guess?
If you are saying the R version should be more expensive because it is a different design, that may be an explanation from Canon's point of view. But, to the consumer, who will be choosing between the two current models, it's only fair to compare the prices of those models.
Sure, it's fair if you decide it's fair, or not, if you don't...
The facts are this is a new product with one peer on the market... the Sony 70-200 GM, which is made in Thailand, is much larger, has been on the market for a while, is known to have QC issues, and runs $2599. Now, I'm not sure about you, but I'll take the Canon at $2799 all day long relative to the alternative. I still hope the pricing is wrong, but if it's not... well... I'm ok with it.
Ultimately, customers will decide whether or not the new R version is worth the extra money to them. (If indeed it does cost more.) But, we weren't discussing whether or not it is worth the money (that's up to each individual). Instead, we are determining if the new lens is more expensive that the EF version and in this case, if the quoted prices are correct, it will undeniably be more expensive than the EF version at introduction.
What you're trying to describe is a relationship called willingness to pay and consumer surplus, and no we definitely don't want to get into a discussion about that on these boards.