Yes, this discussion goes back some time. This said, I continue to sympathize with the anti-video lot, as photography is photography and video is video; two separate mediums.
Of course, disclaimers abound: For folks involved with both mediums, especially in journalism, the marriage of the two is great. Moreover, with camera phones chipping away at all forms of cameras, the exclusion of video would likely prove a marketing disaster. Canon and others need to add value to their products, particularly as the average consumer is increasingly wondering why he or she needs any type of dedicated camera when some NatGeo photographer is effectively endorsing the iPhone as a very capable device (and he's right!).
And as the refrain goes; "if you don't like the video feature, just ignore it."
The problem is that 'ignoring' is an action, and some people don't want to have to ignore something; you know, like that perfectly benign yet incessant rattling that occurs at certain speeds in one's older but still perfectly functioning car...just ignore it. Not always so easy.
Now, much of this is psychological, but when it comes to a process, and all that is involved in that process, never underestimate the psychological component. For some folks, a tool is just a tool like any other. If it gets the job done, then it's fine. For other folks, however, a tool is an integral part of the overall process, in terms of ergonomics, weight, handling, feel, and even looks.
What might be superficial to one person might be, to another, a beneficial or detrimental factor that affects the experience, even if this element adds or detracts nothing, respectively, from the tool's actual function and capabilities.
Of course some argue, and reasonably so, that a company cannot customize a product, especially a mass-produced one, to fit the needs of every customer. Should Canon stop offering autofocus or auto-exposure just because some customers only use a manual focus lens or only shoot in manual mode?
But then we go back to that psychological thing. Video is not analogous to autofocus, auto-exposure, or any other feature (used or not) that actually pertains to still photography. I can accept unneeded features that are designed for still photography, but video is not photography, and on one level, its inclusion is as arbitrary as putting a toenail clipper on a camera. And without a hint of irony, I would be far more likely to use that clipper than would I video.
But for some time, all of this was more of a mental issue; get over it, as one might counter. Quit being such a prima donna.
Fine. But now there appears to be some reconsideration that earlier complaints of video's impact on photography-based R&D and price might now actually warrant attention. Frankly, I have no clue if this is true, and I'll rely on the folks from Canon for a definitive answer, but if I was still shooting DSLR's, I would, in principle, rightfully be annoyed if the photographic system in which I've invested is somehow faltering on its photographic potential for the sake of video development and promotion (which is NOT cheap). I note "in principle," because in reality, I think the current offerings are excellent, as all DSLR's are excellent. You should see the antiquated stuff I'm using. But I digress...
The point is that opposing video is perfectly understandable; like, when as a youngster, my skateboarding ethos involved a hatred of disco-oriented roller-skating, despite the similarities between the two activities. It might all sound frivolous or silly given the greater problems of the world, but humans are a complicated bunch.
To be sure, the issue certainly does NOT call for removing video from DSLRs, but instead to at least try, for a second, to grasp the fact that not all 7 billion of us are the same. As such, when our preferences don't conform with the only thing offered due to lack of choice, and when the arbitrary inclusion of an element potentially undermines a tool's primary function, then resultant grievances are legitimate, especially when alternatives are extremely limited.
But yeah, when a photographer is no longer the "target audience" for a still camera product, then there's trouble in them there hills!!