It's obvious that the guy is reading a Spanish version of Nikon Pro, not the one you and I read, unless I am totally missing something.
For whatever reason, some still hope that FX is the only way to go, and fervently wish this will happen because of economies of scale.
The economies of scale we saw with computers will not be there in cameras. 10's of millions of computer chips are produced every year. compared to very few FX sensors.
For some, I agree that FX really delivers the ultimate. But in reality, for the vast majority, there remains few advantages justifying spending what it takes to get an FX system. An FX system will always be more expensive than a DX system. Both will keep improving, but FX will always require more money.
Not so long ago, there was a real difference in IQ between DX and FX, the D300 was way below the D3. But now, compare the DXO numbers for IQ between the D7000 (DX) and the D700 or even the D3s, they are practically nil. You have to go to the D3x to see a difference again - and I suspect the D400 will get in D3X territyry, while the D4 will raise the bar. The only obvious advantages are in low-light photography and subject isolation through depth-of-field. And maybe the ability to print larger, almost poster size directly from FX - if you can afford the expense.
DX is to FX as 35mm was to 6x6. Two different systems, we only get confused because they share approximately the same form factor and lenses. In the past, Nikon and Canon produced 35mm systems, and left 6x6 to Hasselblad and Rollei - and Pentax
We will see a Pro DX system, just have to let Nikon produce it when they will be ready.
JC
Some cameras, some lenses, some computers
