wake up: video isn't free. you are paying for it.
Not really. Those who wanted and use video are who pay the lions share of the R&D costs for features like this in most cases. Companies as large as Canon or Nikon don't go into something like this without careful and ongoing market research.
What a product costs Canon to build isn't the largest factor in what price they stick on it when it gets to consumer's hands. The largest factor is what they think consumers are going to be willing to pay for it. So the cost of adding video, or the savings of not adding video, isn't likely to have much of an impact on the actual price of the hardware at the end of the day.
Adding video doesn't mean Canon ups their price because "Oh, it has video, therefore all the photographers with no interest in video will pay more ahahahahahaha!" (or would it be kekekekeke?) No, adding video means they can market that same camera at the same price to those who want video, but would probably pass on a camera without it. They can sell more cameras to those people, at the same market price as if it didn't have video, thereby making up for the loss involved in added video in the first place.
The goal is to maximize profits, and for consumer goods this is done by maximizing market share 9 times out of 10.