Either way, it will be “newly developed”…
LOL... I think they used the language "completely new" over and over again in that 2-3 year period where they ran with the same 18mp sensor, just changing the microlenses. I always thought that would eventually get them in trouble with the FTC on a claims issue if some user decided to get pedantic about it (what; a forum user pedantic?!).
We have some good experience in the camera industry with subscription attempts, and it doesn't bode well for Canon. The ones that were more successful (high-end video rigs) came from a place of spec leadership, where the subscription feature went over and above what any other brand could offer.
I don't mind subscriptions. For all my bellyaching when Lightroom went to subscription, they actually - and surprisingly - continued to deliver more and more value over time with the updates. Not really a Canon pattern, though.
Another user above noted that a subscription could subsidize initial hardware cost, which I find intriguing. Imagine a $199 R5 II, with a $99 per month sub. You'd pay about $5k running that rig for four years, and I bet more people would wind up getting 2 rather than 1. That's kinda interesting, especially if you were given the option of buying outright or subscribing, making it essentially a financing plan option. This would have different tax consequences (pro and con) depending on your country for pros.
In terms of the resolution issue, 45 is a nice middling resolution nowadays, but it would be notable that Canon alone would lack a high resolution sensor. This isn't good for a narrow subset of the market (which I happen to be in).
Canon has a long tradition of putting its foot into a product category with a relatively safe, uninteresting spec sheet relative to the competition. The Canon EOS R, for example. Where it does blow the doors off the spec sheet (6d, R5, 5D Mark II, 1Dx, etc.), it typically introduces a Mark II four years later that is pretty disappointing. That is likely because expectations of the series are over-high, but both of those trends suggest a non-bold R1 and a disappointing R5 II.
Upshot: I think the R5 series is the workhorse product line for Canon. I believe how they manage that product line has an outsized effect on its marketshare among the audiences buying the high profit margin cameras (not to be confused with general marketshare). Even the R1 market is likely to be looking to rely on R5 bodies as well for other use cases. I think there are three areas that Canon could screw up that could cause it to eventually lose its perception of industry leadership: supertele lenses; 1 series body; 5 series body. I personally consider recent bread-and-butter supertele releases to be disappointing relative to other brands', though there are exceptions (100-300). The R1 and R5 II will be critical releases for lines that haven't been upgraded in half a decade. If we get an R5 II that doesn't satisfy the landscape/wedding photographer/general pro, and an R1 that is perceived as 85 percent the camera of the new Sony/Nikon offerings, this will not be as good 5-year cycle for Canon. This doesn't spell doom, but it could lower share by a few points, almost all of those points coming from the high-profit-margin side of the product line.