Yves (that is you in the photo right?),
I think from Nikon's point of view the D2Hs is a good move. They gain commonality that is lost with the entry of the D2X. From a design/mfg point of view there isn't much point in running an almost identical body with just a few small differences (image processing h.w, button differences, etc). So it's both cost effective due to commonality and getting all available top line improvements to the consumer. How you package such a move is the $10k question.
Where Nikon's move is questionable is price and sensor. In today's megapixel crazy world they will inevitably be compared to 1D mkII with its 8MP. Could they have put a 6 or 8MP sensor in the D2Hs? Make it six and you'd hear the same complaints. 8MP and maybe the D2h would not be differentiated enough from a D2x (canon has an 8MP span here). Consumers in a lot of markets have also been given a taste of a $2k D2h, hard to go back when the improvements are not as tangible as something like MP count would be.
In a position where there would have been much internal drive to commonise the bodies, Nikon probably made the right h.w decision but sold it badly. We'll see how the actual camera turns out.
Though the details of the 1D bodies are a little grey to me, I don't think that Canon has been in the same situation. They seem to be more about improving the sensor side with the body almost unchanged from the film 'parent'. ie a sensor change doesn't make our other body significantly behind.
