[popo]

The car example earlier is hard to apply to the camera industry. There are many car manufacturers who group together and sell essentially the same car, but they aren't the same. The core mechanics might be, but the cosmetics are different and do create some differentiation. For example, my car is currently a VW Up! The same car as the Skoda CitiGo and Seat Mii. But their external styling is different, as are the interiors. I actually preferred the Mii over the Up!, but the dealer was much further away and it wasn't a big enough deal for me to make the effort. The VW group example may not be the best, but certainly between the French and Japanese manufacturers there is more sharing going around these days.

Try applying that to cameras? Reskinning cameras just hasn't worked. Like the Leica/Panasonics, and someone save us from the Hasselblad/Sonys. The differentiation potential isn't really there. Cosmetic differences aren't important to most buyers, and under the skin they are still the same, so you pick the cheapest.

Back to Canon, I can kinda see their strategy, but it has a similar problem to Nikon. Price. Compared to both the mirrorless competition, and also to themselves in lower end DSLRs, I don't think the value proposition is there when new. Give it a year or two for the old ones to go on fire sale and they get much more interesting. I actually really like Nikon 1 on paper, but the pricing and overall marketing of it has been pretty bad.

Supposing they did come up with a "pro" mirrorless camera. It would still be a tough sell without the native lenses and would for most purposes still not be as good equivalent DSLRs.

I have to wonder if they have a twist in the long term game up their sleeves. Something that makes the mirrorless vs. DSLR argument seem pointless?