Right it might be a little early to discuss, but that rumor has been around for some time.
Seeing that in the context of this website, which uses the word landscape in its name, the question might pop up, what the advantages of increasing MP without increasing the DR at the same time are?
Maybe we are at a point in sensor development, where increasing image size does not necessarily add some kind of usability. This is the same development computers took. In the early days the step from a 8088 to 386 was a huge leap forward. Today I still use my 2008 Mac Pro, and it runs just fine. I added a SSD, better graphics over the time, and also a new 5K iMac is a very interesting machine with it's gorgeous display. But only for that. I will not experience a much different user experience in terms of processing power for Lightroom and Photoshop with it.
I use an Epson Stylus 4800 printer. I can print A2+ which is huge, and rather difficult to store. So usually I print A3, which is perfect for me. Actually most Landscape Pro's, which I know print on A3, because the size is nice to sell. For that I could be happy with 24MP.
However with 36 MP I can crop extensively, and with 50 MP this will even be easier. Agreed, vey handy too. But do I, for the photography I do, need more than that, just because it is available?
I would call myself an early adapter. I like technical gadgets. A new sensor, with better DR and better color rendition would always make me want it. But just increasing image size, so I can do even more pixel peeping, without any real world benefit doesn't make sense to me. At least for landscape photography.
Having said that, we all don't know how the new Canon sensor will really behave. But looking at that Hippo, I have my doubts.