Maybe there is some misunderstanding of my post.
All interesting answers and thoughts.
I have no idea right now what else to add. Except for one thing:
I am missing any thought of the role SAMSUNG will be playing.
They have entered the system camera market.
And if they go forward with that as they did in other markets (TV, LED, of course not to forget smart phones and tablets), I think they will take over a big part of the consumer market and maybe then also aim for the pros.
The last thing I believe is that they will draw back.
I don't know where this notion of wondrous change in Samsung comes from. They have been an excellent vendor for computer monitors like 15 years ago, so how come anyone should be surprised that they become a top TV vendor? I don't get how people should be surprised by that. Samsung has also been busy in other areas for quite a long time and they have been at this since 1938. Just read their corporate history.
For me Samsung is nothing new and I have read several articles about them to understand them better. So I was not groping about in the dark with my comment.
More I am fully aware, that when they do things, they do it with consequence and with a lot of resources.
Nevertheless Samsung is nowhere near being a serious player in the DSLR market.
Nobody was saying this thread was just about DSLRs. And here I agree with you.
They won't go into "old" tec but maybe trying to overrun the market with something new as they did when they got familiar with smart phones and tablets.
They are not even a big player in mirrorless yet, although they have entered this market. As I see it they just try their hand at producing point-and-shoot cameras to gain some valuable R&D experience to provide some fringe benefits for their smart phone business. You can turn that argument around and stand it on its head as well: Samsung is willing to invest in this area as an offshoot of their smart phone development. You shouldn't expect Samsung not to be aware that the point-and-shoot market is shrinking rapidly.
Nevertheless there is a vast difference between being for example Nikon and being Samsung. Just think about being able to produce high quality lenses. Are you seriously expecting Samsung to be able to do so on the next 10 or even 20 years without having to purchase some other corporation?
But they have the power to do so. And they have a lot.
Do you think Canon or Nikon or even the struggling Olympus can do what they could?
You can look at Sony's acquisitions and collaboration with Zeiss for what a corporation must do to become a serious player and even Sony is not replacing Nikon yet, although Sony appears to be doing perhaps not all the right things but at least quite many of those.
Sony is Sony. And IMHO it is not the best, what they did to Minolta. (to be polite).
Samsung has a much better and positive standing in the eyes of a lot of consumers.
Especially the ones they gathered throughout the last years.
There is still an awful lot of learning curve ahead of them, before they can replace one of the top two. Just bringing out interesting products is not enough. They must be willing to somehow keep their related system products valid for decades as well.
It should be no surprise that a well established vendor such as Fuji is still doing well. The bottom line is: You either have experience and make it work or you don't.
And my bottom line is:
If Samsung is not just playing around, which I can not see from their corporate history, they are willing to learn. And they have the power to learn.
But maybe you are right and they lose interest in the new toy. And so this is a question for "TEN YEARS FROM NOW", isn't it?