Agreed. If I were to get a 600 right now it would almost certainly be the Mk II and not the Mk III. A lot of that would be for cost savings, but even trying to balance the performance with extenders advantage of the Mk II vs the weight advantage of the Mk III and ignore the price point difference, I might still go with the Mk II. Granted, I personally hand hold almost all my shots (even with the 500 f/4) but at 600/840/1200, I suspect that would be more of tripod mounted lens, thus the weight savings is more about lugging the bag around and at that point, I'll take the extra IQ.
I actually wonder why Canon released the Mk III versions of the 400/600. Part of me thinks it may have just been "me too" products showing the world that they can produce a low weight design similar (better) to Sony. That or they were manufacturing trial balloons as Canon learned to move elements back toward the camera. And if you think Canon doesn't do that, just look at the entire EF-m system. But somehow they made it through before Canon shut the door on new EF lenses.
RF
That is the short answer. The longer answer, Canon does a very good job of producing what will sell and running their business. It could be as revered as the 200 f/2 is by many of us, it wasn't a very profitable lens. But, more, I suspect this tells us than an RF version is coming in the next 12 months and Canon might try to use it to encourage the RF lens conversion. But you have to think production of the EF 200 f/2 ceased awhile (years?) ago if they are running out of stock now. So, there is a plan.