Maybe because they did market research and also have sales figures that show it isn’t commercially worthwhile?
I never know quite what the intentions are of those who post this sort of comment...(no snark intended)--at times it seems overly dismissive of those stating a different viewpoint.
[And yes some of those viewpoints are wrong, but naturally my own posts here are never to be dismissed
!]
Of course Canon has both sales figures and market research at their disposal!
Sales figures are about the past, and market research is about (predicting) the future, right?
But just because sales figures and market research exist, it does not follow that their product development teams never make mistakes.
And in my view, Canon's development of all things EF-M was flawed...almost from the start.
[Canon's market research for their PIxma PRO-100 13x19 inkjet printer (about the same time) was flawed, too. But when used properly, it is a
wonderful product.]
But back to the M: they never knew what they wanted it to be!
I was an early adopter of the M...with the original firmware that shipped with the M...the autofocus properties of this device were unbelievably bad--the original M/original firmware combination was nothing but a point-and-shoot camera with an absurdly large sensor.
But the original M has a flash mount...which works as a place to put an external mic...the original M has a MIC input.
As I recall (could be wrong), the UI for the original M is an odd blend of PowerShot and more-advanced features associated with the DSLRs of the time.
Somewhere on the 'net I posted, nearly a decade ago...that what the M needed was an on-board pop-gun of a flash...to brighten faces on bright, sunny days.
Sure enough with the M2...my desire for the on-board fill-flash was fulfilled...making it quite suitable for my own travel needs.
It all kind of runs together, but I think I purchased the M2 from an eBay seller based in Japan...as CanonUSA (apparently) decided not to sell-and-market the M2 here.
Same with the EF-M 11-22 IS lens...I bought two of these from Canada.
But then the M3 was released...and sold here in the USA. I passed after reading reviews and peeking at pixels...its images were sort of green?!
And I thought the M3 body was plasticky (as with the M5 that I purchased).
Over the years Canon made some curious decisions about the various Ms...I was (to put it mildly) flabbergasted when discovering that there is exactly (and only) one way to manually adjust exposure compensation on the M6 (as well as the M5)--with a dial on top of the camera!
Thankfully this 'feature' was modified for the M6MkII...with a dial in that position remaining as an option.
=====
So now it is an R world...or so we're led to believe.
The M6MkII has apparently been discontinued. I have to guess at what Canon's intentions are with the M etc.
The M6MkII, even without a viewfinder, is significantly larger and heavier than the M200. And frankly, the M200 more in line with what the M may be best at...a REALLY small and light package with an APS-C sensor inside.
=====
The title of the thread is What's Next for Canon or something-or-other.
I wouldn't be surprised if Canon continues with the M200-sized bodies...and even market them as a high-quality device capable of delivering superior video when used as a webcam.
We do just that in my family (using a 40D/EF-S10-18 IS as the video source)...as my wife still teaches yoga from home.
Canon could do a lot of good work on their webcam software...what works now is fine but Canon should consider implementing something along the lines of what Apple calls 'Center Stage'. Hell if I knew how I'd write the code myself...I'm sure it would sell cameras...and would surpass the Apple product in functionality.
But I'm afraid that the M6 and its analogs may be done. Canon Rumors was (sort of) right...all those years ago.
Why (in part)? Because the M6MkII is just too darned good, and too inexpensive...for what it offers.
But full-featured Ms may be done.
There, I admitted it!