See, while some might think of the R5ii as being crippled to draw people to the R1, I’d sooner think of it as the R1 having features which are worth more to justify moving up. Market segmentation is part of every camera manufacturer’s plan to be fair.
I’m going to guess that people who need the R1 will know the difference in what they’re paying for. I wouldn’t be shocked to see the R1 have a faster burst rate, less rolling shutter, better AF, more throughput capacity, better/faster connectivity options, a nicer evf, the multi-control button, and above all else - a higher reliability than other bodies to just name a few ideas in addition to those you mentioned in your post. High reliability doesn’t get the attention it deserves. When something HAS to work, people will pay to MAKE SURE it works. And generally, I’ve always felt that high reliability usually comes from systems that are old and shown to work predictably over time - having a system be both new tech AND highly reliable is hard to do, and likely expensive.
I really don’t think most manufacturers move a ton of their top camera bodies, so I don’t really see the R1 competing heavily with the R5. I really can’t see Canon “crippling” the R5 to make the R1 sell better - the R5 isn’t competing with the R1 - it’s competing with the z7, z8, a7rv, a7s, and some here have argued it competes with the a1 as well. Crippling the R5 to make the r1 sell would only give advantages to their competitors.
