I also tend to think that the mass of the industry is indeed in the low-end bikes, but I also think that that too much emphasis is put on racing bikes and too little on touring bikes... But that's not only from bike companies, I think it's also if not mostly from cyclists, because we much prefer to have our gear carried in a supported ride than carry our own in panniers. Maybe we're sissies, that's right, and I'm the first of them. (But I have been thinking about a touring bike...)

However, I must disagree with you a bit KY: these bikes are NOT commuter bikes. Commuter bikes would be: light, come with fenders (and maybe even panniers) and lights (for night riding), have robust wheels, an integrated locking mechanism, etc. It would also be at a decent price (maybe below $400?). Innovative design would bring improvements I can't even think of right now. (Like it has in racing bikes...) The mass of the market is made of bulky hybrids and pseudo-mountain bikes with heavy and cheaply made suspensions. These bikes are not made for going anywhere, they are made to ride around the block, not for a 10-mile commute. Or, worse, taken somewhere in a car and ridden a bit on a cycling path. You need a SUV for that because if you are a small person they are way too heavy to put on the roof-rack of a small car. (There are some exceptions... I loved my Trek 7100. Still certainly not light enough to be a commuter bike.)

Of course, some brave people commute on them. That's quite impressive. But poor design (which again is in part driven by consumers who want flashy suspension for example even if all they will do is ride the bike path) is also what will prevent the vast majority of new owners of entry-level bikes from using their bikes for commuting.