It is amazing what people extrapolate from what I said.
1. I said the current cameras were technological wonders (I love both of mine and I am contemplating a 1Dx or its replacement when it comes out.).
2. I have nothing against Canon having video on their cameras. I'm happy the video feature is there for those that use it.
3. I never said or suggested that a pure stills camera was wanted because it would be less expensive. In fact, the cameras right now are less expensive than they would be as stand alones because they are designed, marketed, and appeal to a very wide audience of consumers.
4. I certainly wasn't crying about anything, but I would now suggest that the poster who said so is a little too emotional about the topic. Untwist your panties.
It never fails that people write and act in such a rude way when they can hide behind a screen. Those same people aren't such sloppy jerks when it comes to face to face interaction. They know better, and might have to account for their boorish behavior.
5. The post had to do with whether or not a stills camera allowed to evolve on it's own, without having to cram so much more technology into the small case, might evolve more quickly and be a better camera in the long run. It is a question, not a manifesto. It makes sense to me that the size of the platform limits what can be crammed in there.
I see no reason why "live view" is necessarily dependent upon having video recording capabilities in the camera. My got dang car looks out its back end and doesn't record a cotton picken thing. Live view doesn't record anything when using it on the camera either. It is using the same sensor one takes photos with... like looking through an electronic view finder.
Yes, I can just ignore the video features, and I do. Duh. That isn't the point or question posed in the post. Sheesh!