And how would you call doing the reverse? Limiting useful features (e.g. built-in intervalometer) to lower end models. I've felt that to be snobbery on Canons part.
The thing that really got me on the R5 was that FTP only works if you have a specific grip attached.
That;s just as bad! It's that kind of bad faith towards its customers that gets people to jump platforms for a different set of compromises and problems.
Canon has an interesting marketing strategy, they offer great value for money on entry-level budget cameras such as the M50, and Rebel series. Quite a few people remain happy with that gear and stick with it, case closed. Some photographers grow in proficiency (or don't and get addicted to collecting gear), get hooked by the Canon brand, and decide to upgrade. It's then that the cracks begin to appear in Canon's veneer of benevolence...
It appears that Canon's strategy is to design intentionally incomplete camera systems below the highest tier, to remove really convenient features that the hardware in the camera can do, reducing the versatility of the tool for the purposes of market segmentation.
When certain functions are missing that they need, buyers are forced to upgrade to the next tier. Sometimes Canon's actions are miserly, restricting features that other brands offer across their range only to higher tiers. Other times its just downright malicious, removing certain video modes, such as 24fps from vlogging cameras, or the overall number of video modes and custom memory recall modes from EOS R to R6. For the life of me, I can't imagine why they would do something like omit the metal lens mount from the old 55-250mm STM, how much more would it have cost to put a metal one on like every other lens? How about a sh*tty rubber gasket under the lens mount of non L-series lenses. Yes, I know that a few cents saved here and there, and over millions of products that increases profits, but that's exactly what I meant by mean-spirited bad faith towards their customer base.
To put this into perspective, most cameras these days can take decent images, especially when coupled with a decent lens, and cameras above $1,000 are probably sufficient for most people's needs. If you're happy with a tool for a certain task, and it works, and stick with it, and don't upgrade until you
need more. Why reward bad corporate behaviour?
If you have specialist needs, or are into collecting camera gear, then it becomes a game of diminishing returns, the more you pay, the less you get for the extra money. That's a typical marketing strategy to create exclusivity, products that few have are highly desirable products, and they can be priced accordingly to create this impression, beyond the actual increased cost of parts within the product.