If they put 1dx sensor in a 5d3 body, reduce iso and fps, they may collecti enough to survive and get ready for next year.
well.. thats some sort of word i would expect at fox news headline.
canon is making less PROFIT.... that´s not the same as making billions of loss like sony.
yes, survive. If shareholders are unhappy, many stupid things can occur. Of course I didn't mean they are about to close the business. What I mean't for survive was: "running business as usually and evolve without any revolution as it might be too risky."
What I should mention before is, that I don't think that revolutionary changing the way they work and manage would be safe. I'd rather see putting some fresh air but without sending old guys out. Revolution in their case might happen bad. The whole organisation is rather very conservative and it of course causes a problem with innovation.
Some of you require more revolutionary and groundbreaking solutions and I don't see them achieving it the way, I guess you might expect. Let them do their job and follow the market innovations first (but without being closed with patents).
For the company it is important to invest in R&D, because this is the way they can be technologically competive on the market and this is their asset. It requires time and efforts and doesn't give results right now. The other way to be innovative is an incident, like accidently following some fresh idea and getting good results (ie - there is a guy, who got his 100k for development his idea and he succedeed, but they gave him like 5% chance for success).
You might run R&D evolutionary step by step providing feedback from the market with laboratory and scientific work or get 20 young yuppies, give them 100k each and wait for the results - maybe someone gets something interesting. I simply don't see it in their case the other way, so the very important thing for them in a long horizon time is collecting money for long term R&D, without making shareholders angry with these - from their point of view - unneccessery spendings. It's safe to collect money for R&D with such a cashcow. Let fhem flow the market with cheaper and good FF with much less profit margin than currently.
Do they miss innovations because they have not enough money for it? Most probably.I wouldn't like to get know that they follow the path: "If there is no solution so there is no problem". The other look on this sounds: "If the problem can be solved with money, then this is not a problem, this is a cost". In their case in fact this is an investment, which they need as a water and air, because without R&D they will not survive as company we know them today. This company maybe doesn't react what you would like, but still most of us like their products. Without money, they will not invest in R&D. With shareholders demanding higher stock prices and larger sales number so the more profit for them, they can cut money for R&D which would bring money back is some time.
Cashcow -> money -> R&D -> Survive
Making such a cashcow is currently the best way to collect money for R&D and survive in a longer term. That's what I wanted to say and this is the only revolution, they could afford.