[Brightcolours]

It is not that bad: every camera has positive and negative aspects, especially when you compare it with its competitors.

That said, I think they (the Nikon Engineers) were on a very strict deadline, because Nikon knew that the next battlefield would be FF mirrorless cameras, and they cannot afford to come in third place. Unlike Canon and Sony, which are large corporations with several different areas of interesr, Nikon relies on Photography.

The result: a rushed product that is not really ready for release which was announced early to beat Canon to the punch by a week or so. Just look at the lenses: Nikon has 3 very basic lenses that are quite large for their spexifications, while Canon has 4 lenses, including a very flexible kit lens, and 2 lenses that have to be very complex to design (28-70 f/2 and 50mm f/1.2).

In any case, seeing the final products, I am just not thrilled with any of these, since they are too big and heavy for what I do (walking around and taking pictures). 

The big question remaining is: are the consumers expected to stay with DSLR? Mirrorless cameras are actually cheaper to build than DSLR, and you could get new system cameras for less than $500, but Nikon killed their consumer mirrorless range, and Canon EOS-M range is... simply invisible on the market.

Nikon also has different divisions, not just the photographic camera division.

Nikon indeed has an uphill battle: For video, their lenses focus the wrong way around, making them a less viable option for serious video outfits alone for that reason. Canon has been developing and refining the DP PD AF for a number of generations already, controlling both the sensor design aspect and the camera AF algorithms aspect. Nikon seem to have treated the Nikon 1 series as a totally separate entity, everything they did well there never came to the DSLR line for instance. Canon had a processing power gap to fill before they could offer 4K in cameras, but it seems they have managed to close it lately.

On the lenses: The Canon 35mm f1.8 macro seems to be the more attractive of the two, size wise and macro aspect wise. I see nothing wrong with the Nikkor 50mm f1.8: it is a modern, high performance design, and as such not strangely big or expensive. The Canon 50mm f1.2, on the other hand, is heavier, will be quite a bit more expensive and is a more specialized tool.
The Canon 28-70mm f2 is another specialized, expensive and heavy tool, the 24-105mm f4 might be a bit more attractive than the Nikkon 24-70mm f4 (depends on it it is actually finally a good performing 24-105mm). And the 58mm f0.95, that is Nikon trying to outdo Zeiss with its Otus line.

The Nikon Z line is semi-pro + "customer", as you put it... The D600/610/750 are mostly bought by amateurs and even the D850 is popular under amateurs. That they killed the low end consumer line, that part is clear, and I don't see them come with a new APS-C line soon.
Canon's EOS M line is nr 1 in Japan, beating Sony and Olympus even.

Worldwide, Canon has a 49.1% marketshare for DSLR & MILC combined. Nikon 24.9% and Sony a "mere" 13.3%. 

Probably one could deduce Canon worldwide market share for mirrorless from mirrorless marketshare vs DSLR marketshare and the above numbers, but my brain is a bit low on caffeine today.