Populations drive corporate bottom lines. Canon cares…about the camera market. But not about you and the people you influence, nor about me and the people I influence, the number of which doesn't even rise to the level of meaningless insignificance on the scale of the global camera market.
This viewpoint is exactly why all companies eventually fail, unless they diversify into new markets.
I take that, as a biologist, you understand exponential growth of populations. Well, in the social sciences we have the same concept, only relating to ideas, behaviour, beliefs, customs and such. So, the number of people I directly influence might on itself be irrelevant, but then they also influence people and so on ... thousands and millions.
First off, I think you may be overstating the impact of that influence on camera buying decisions. Are you suggesting that every person to whom you recommend the Fuji XT-1 will buy one, or that no one else may be telling that same person to buy a Canon 650D? That seems unliklely. Influence works both ways. Importantly, it works by observation - Canon's position as the market leader means if you go out and look, you're more likely to see a Canon camera in someone's hands than one made by Fuji, Olympus or Panasonic.
Second, and more importantly, it's obvious that Canon
is diversified into many markets, from imaging systems to industrial equipment. Their imaging systems business encompasses P&S, ILCs, camcorders, cinema and broadcast, printers, etc. As I stated above, Canon's EOS M was bought by more people in Japan last year than any MILC made by Fuji, Olympus or Panasonic. So not only does Canon have a presence in that market segment, it's actually a rather successful presence.
You just happen to like a Fuji camera better, and somehow that's led you to the conclusion that Canon is doomed?
(Well, maybe I extrapolated from your statements just a bit for dramatic effect…)
