Why so little in body image stabilization?

You flipped your calculations. DSLRS are a guaranteed steady income stream. If a camera maker can steer the profit, that's where the stabilization belongs. I've bought 9 DSLRS in the past 12 years, and not that many lenses which benefit from stabilization, whether lens or body based. My last big lens purchase wasn't even an OEM lens, so if it had stabilization, and that was a profit maker, it would have been Zeiss's profit, not Nikon's.

Count your camera purchases over a decent timespan, and your OEM lens purchases. You may be surprised.

That, of course, is assuming that body stabilization can ever be a profit maker. Look at the defunct Minolta system. They promoted it as "free stabilization", but it was an expensive system, and their lower sales numbers already put them at a cost disadvantage against Nikon and Canon. They had a recipe for fail, and they prepared and served it perfectly.

--
Rahon Klavanian 1912-2008. Armenian genocide survivor, amazing cook, scrabble master, and loving grandmother. You will be missed. Ciao! Joseph www.swissarmyfork.com