yes, possibly. but only to a few people primarily concerned with "perception, brand image, bragging rights, bling factor" etc.But back on topic: If Canon had launched the RF system with lenses like a 24-70mm f/3.5-5.6, 50mm f/2.8 STM, the message would have been received by me as "We did a FF mirrorless like you asked, with some mediocre lenses, now go away".
but vast majority of potential customers are much more interested in "bang for the buck".
given the fact that Canon was not able yet to release a "pro-grade"'EOS R body (equivalent in performance to 5DSR II or 1DX III) but only a "mirrorfree 6D III" it would have been smarter to offer it at an "attractive 6D-class price", lower than A7 III and Z6, eg 1699,- along with an RF 24-105/3.5-5.6 IS STM (equivalent to EF non-L) in kit for 1999.
plus a few RF lenses not more expensive than equivalent EF glass -eg
RF 16-35/4.0 IS STM
RF 24-70/4.0 IS STM
RF 24/2.8 IS STM
RF 35/1.8 NOT macro (useless anyways)
RF 50/1.8 IS STM
RF 100/2.0 IS STM
then Canon would be scrambling to meet demand and fill an avalanche of orders. Entry barrier to move into R system much lower and more enticing to more enthusiasts as well as pros willing to "try out the new platform with limited commitment first, rather than having to go all-in".
Canon could then still have launched some of their "pink unicorn lens fancies" in 2019 along with an EOS R1 ("flagship") and R5 (hi rez) bodies once those are ready to go. Second massive wave of "buzz". More orders and more excitement for R eco-system.
would have made a lot more (business) sense to me.
but ofc "Canon is #1, Canon knows better, Canon knows best, Canon is infallible".