You're the second person to try to use this logic on me today. People who aren't happy with the direction Canon is taking and the products they're making aren't purchasers. They're fence sitters or switchers. More people aren't buying than are, so there's no way you can conclude that based on the market share of a dwindling market that they're making the right decisions. Conversely, I can't prove that they are making the wrong decisions from sales data either. These camera systems have a lot of inertia to them in sales. At this point you'd learn far more by asking the people who aren't making the purchases of Canon gear why they're not buying than trying to look at sales numbers.
For example If Canon had stayed with manual focus FD lenses and not switched to the EOS AF system Canon's sales wouldn't have dropped to 0 in a year. Their sales still would have been good for some time. However, that decision would have eventually caught up with them and years later it'd be easy to point to that decision as a bad one that cost them. We're too close to the inflection point to know for sure how it's going to pan out. But this same cycle has played out for many companies in the past, some corrected before it was too late. Others didn't.
But they didn't, they evolved, they came out with EF, and EF-s, and M, and RF, they released the best selling range of MILC's in predominantly MILC markets (they provided what those markets wanted), they diversified into medical imaging, a cinema range of cameras, security cameras etc etc. You think you can say they haven't changed, they have, just not in the way you want, you say they are doomed yet they are maintaining market share in a contracting market.
You feel they are failing to provide what your market wants, we are just saying maybe they know what they are doing and your market isn't worth the cost to them and the last 50 years of data has shown them to be good judges.