To Jani: Here is the other part of the same article that you chose to ignore:
The reason I pointed out that exact quote from the article, is not because I choose to ignore your mantra, or that part of the article, but because you ignore the following facts:
1) Pixel pitch <> pixel well size/photodiode area
2) Pixel pitch <> microlens size
So the smaller sensor (CMOS or whatever) can
have BETTER "pixels" than the larger sensor.
I should think that Canon's illustration makes that clear.
If you reread the excerpt from Canon's technology pages, you might see what we're getting at here:
I can have a pixel pitch of 5 meters, yet it helps nothing at all if the microlens is only 5 µm² and the sensor well is 4. Sure, my 12 megapixel sensor would cover an area of 300 km², but the image quality might not be so great compared to a 10 megapixel sensor with microlenses covering 25 µm² and sensor wells of 16 µm².
I suggest that you stop presuming that everyone else on this forum knows less than you about what's going on and perhaps assume a slightly humbler attitude. The issues you raise are hardly new, and have been discussed at length in this and other technically-minded fora before, with contributions from people who do know how sensors are made and how technology progresses.