Stop me from buying an M6 Mk ii before Canon stops the M line

"We don't want bigger".

Bigger…what? Camera bodies? Sure, of course. But moving back to a 54 mm lens mount from the abject mistake of 47 mm does not mean that the camera body is necessarily going to be significantly larger. If Canon can make a Rebel SL3, then they can make an R50. And of course, if Canon can make the EF 40 mm f/2.8 STM and the EF-S 24 mm f/2 STM, then they can do similar lenses for the RF mount.

M50 body size: 116 x 88 x 59 mm
SL3 body size: 122 x 93 x 70 mm
R10 body size: 123 x 88 x 83 mm

The R10 is not intended to be the most compact camera in the RF line the way the SL3 is the most compact body in the SLR line. Nor is the R10 meant to be the most affordable camera in Canon's lineup. The SL3 and M50 Mk II are roughly competitive on price, but the R10 is a bracket higher.

Whether or not something is popular in the marketplace says nothing about the relative cost structure to a manufacturer of maintaining two completely separate and incompatible production lines that duplicate features.

APS-C RF mount cameras are just barely hitting the market, and Canon is not going to target the low end of the market with a new platform. I expect by next year, or possibly 2024, depending on internal processes at Canon, we will see an even cheaper and more compact RF mount camera to replace the M50 Mk II.

In the meantime, the M50 Mk II will continue to be a great camera hampered by a limited lens selection, while the RF mount is clearly the future for Canon.