This is why RED was founded in the first place as Jim Jannard was fed up with this behaviour and why film makers are buying 5D+7Ds and not video cameras these days.
It's not just about costs. It's about what you can shoot, how pretty you can shoot it and if you can turn a profit.
A $20,000 camera should be worth $20,000 and that includes a large enough chip to throw focus, a file you can correct and color grade, professional inputs, standard lens mounts and the ability to upgrade.
Whether RED succeeds or not is up them their accountants and engineers, but I wish them well, if only because they changed the status quo of the standard "prosumer" video camera that is $2,000 worth of in between. Almost there with iso, almost there with lenses, almost there with usability, but in 12 months something that sits on the shelf when you buy the next $4,000 camera that does shoot a progessive file and might have xlr inputs, but probably never, ever raw.
I know the electronic business model is to upgrade us every 18 months, heck we all know this, but with professional equipment you look for longer term use.
Regardless, there is a reason that many of us use a 5d2 that costs a 1/10th of the gizmos we put on and around it. They can change the camera in a year (probably will) but the investment in lenses, mounts, cradles, xlr jacks, lavs, heads etc. are still viable. (in the case of the 5d2 this holds true for still or motion work).
I have a lot of cameras in every format and if I could bundle them all up and sell them for even 1/4 of what I paid retail I'd sell them and buy 4 more 5d2's because they cover so much territory.