I have to ask, why would square be nice? I just can't see the reasons. I can't think of many shots in the field that really lend them to a square format, and especially a framed print, as the vast majority of standard frames and framed print sizes don't work well with a square format. Magazine copy, is mostly not square at least what I see. I remember using the original Kodak 16MP chip yes it was square, and I hated it. It may be just me, but I greatly prefer the 4:3 ratio of MF or 3:2 of 35mm. Just me I guess.
If square is an option of a unique sensor that is also offering a pano option, then sure. But to limit it to square I am missing this.
When I shot the Kodak, I almost always was taking two shots side by side to blend together later.
Just curious, I understand the heritage of Hasselblad and all that and the square format. But hey, I can't use a waist level finder either, framing with it drives me a bit crazy.
Paul C