canon nor any manufacturer will never do this. it's not even realistic as a consumer.
you think i can get 90% of a $50,000 car for $15,000 tomorrow. LOL. point me where i'm there tomorrow with a long line of friends & family.
The numbers I put up were just as an example to illustrate that it's always diminishing returns as we get into the high end. In high end equipment, paying twice the price doesn't get you anywhere near twice the performance, so there's a sweet spot in terms of price-performance ratio that will be different for every user.
The point was that if you can get a significant portion of 1DIII functionality in a 40D (which you already can in the 30D, so the 40D should be even better), pros who make their own living will give the 40D very careful consideration. Self-sustaining pros care very much about cost, despite your claim otherwise.
I didn't say good competition 
Pentax is barely a blip on the radar, but Nikon's sales in this segment are better than Canon's. And why does it matter that Nikon is stuck at 1.5x when the Canon's xxD line is 1.6x? LOL!
You think cross-type sensors are irrelevant? Have you ever tried focusing with an outer AF point on the 20D/30D in dim lighting? It's a nightmare compared to using the center AF point. Having all the AF points be as sensitive as the center cross-type point would be a huge improvement, maybe not to you but to people who actually need it.
So because Canon is better in other market segments, this has what to do with the 30D segment?
Now you're just putting words in my mouth. I don't expect to pay $1600 for a 1DIII. I just expect the 40D to have improved features that other manufacturers have already offered in this segment and I'm confident that Canon would do better than them, like more cross-type AF sensors, better noise performance, and weather sealing (not that important; just icing on the cake).
If having better AF doesn't help you capture images in your shooting situations then great, but don't generalize your shooting habits with everybody else in the world. I've been in numerous dimly lit wedding reception, banquet, award ceremony, etc. situations where I would've killed to have the outer AF points be cross-type, and this was on a 1DII, not just a 20D. Canon finally saw the benefit of spreading out cross-type sensors and adding more of them, and did so on the 1DIII. I don't expect that many on a 40D, but I would hope they would at least add more of them.
I'll say it again: better equipment does make you a better photographer. Once again, not in the artistic sense but rather in the ability to execute one's artistic vision. Give a photographer a disposable camera and a 30D. Assuming he/she knows how to use both cameras, which one will he/she produce better photos with? Let's up the ante: tell that photographer to use the 2 cameras for a dimly let party. Does the camera matter? You bet it does.
All cameras are obstacles that limit our photography in some form or another. Some are just less so than others, and for my purposes the 20D is already better than the competition for what I shoot, let alone the 30D. In terms of center point AF and high ISO noise the 20D is terrific, so I agree that the 40D should be better than the competition for my needs. But that doesn't mean I don't expect improvement in the next model, and when the competition demonstrates that it's possible to fit particular features into the cost constraints of this market segment I think it's reasonable to hope that Canon would do the same.
