[Kunzite]

To show the entire conglomerate that a subsidiary is a small part of because it implies the depth of resources the subsidiary may ,potentially, have access to. Some of the larger units were left out simply because I couldn't readily find it. If anyone else can - feel free.

Except that Nikon is not a Mitsubishi Group subsidiary. Please go and read about "keiretsu"; there are 6 large ones and every corporation you mentioned is member of one:
Ricoh: Fuyo Group
Sony: Mitsui Group
Nikon: Mitsubishi Group
Canon: Fuyo Group

The whole "point" was there was no "point". I simply put out the raw data and assumed that people could come to their own conclusions about what the data may mean. Yes the data is rough and incomplete but at least good enough to speculate about the possible future for Pentax. Speculation isn't entirely unknown on the forum after all. Apparently I assumed too much.

I don't buy it. Not when you start like this:
"These numbers are just rough and not entirely up to date but you get the idea as to what Pentax may be up against when it comes to technical and capital resources compared to the competition. Read it and weep."

By the way, Pentax Corporation ceased to exist in 2008. What Ricoh bought from Hoya was not "Pentax Corporation".
And if I'd want to speculate, I would use the most specific reports I could find (quite difficult for Ricoh Imaging, unfortunately).

Aren't you being just a tad defensive and paranoid about my motives?
All I can say is that nothing sinister was intended but perhaps next time I need to be more explicit about my purpose for posting.

No, as you declared your motives quite clearly: "Read it and weep".

[MadMathMind]

This has nothing to do with anything.

Fortune Global 500:

• Samsung; 26th largest company on earth, R $178 BBN, P $4.7 BBN
• Hitachi; 54th largest company on earth, R $108 BBN, P $2.1 BBN
• Panasonic; 83rd largest company on earth, R $87 BBN, P <$9.1 BBN>
• Sony; 94th largest company on earth, $R 82 BBN, P $0.5 BBN
• Misubishi; 118th largest company on earth, R $72BBN, P $4.8 BBN (owns 40% of Nikon shares)
• Toshiba; 126th largest company on earth, R $70BBN, P $0.9 BBN
• Fujitsu; 186th largest company on earth, R $53 BBN, P $<$0.9>
• Canon; 236th largest company on earth, R $44 BBN, P $2.8 BBN
• Fujifilm; 437th largest company on earth, R $27 BBN, P $0.7 BBN
• Ricoh; 500th largest company on earth, R $24 BBN, P $0.4 BBN

Sony, Nikon and Canon should be quaking in their boots.

Ricoh. 500th. Earned about as much profit as Sony - but - PentaxIsDoomed™

The camera divisions of these companies are pretty small. Samsung, for instance, is enormous--in fact, if it were a country, it would have something like the 35th largest GDP. They make everything; in Korea, and I kid you not because I have personally seen this, it's possible to leave your building made by Samsung construction in an elevator made by Samsung to get into your Samsung car to drive to work at Samsung.

But Samsung, as large as it is, will not throw the enormous weight of the entire company behind their camera division. Nor will any of these companies, except for Canon and Nikon, because that is pretty much what they do. Sure, they both make binoculars and scopes and other random optical devices and Canon has a large printer business, but their bread and butter is cameras.

Sony has shown they'll spend fabulous money on marketshare--look at the PS3. But gaming is not a saturated marketshare. When the original PS launched, there was Sega and Nintendo (plus a few really small players), the latter of whom shredded a deal with Sony that angered them and caused them to enter the gaming business. Still, that was over 20 years ago, and we have...Nintendo, Sony, and Microsoft only (Sega's replacement). It makes sense for Sony to fight hard with only 2 other competitors! But in cameras, they have four main competitors, all of whom have well established customers. Unlike the gaming buisiness, where marketshare resets every 7-8 years with the launch of a new generation of consoles, people keep their camera lenses for a long time. It's not worth trying to buy out this market. It's too hard and too expensive.

I think that's why we saw newcomers like Panasonic focus on mirrorless systems. It was a chance to capture new customers with a new product. Too bad for them consumers largely didn't bite.

In short, the size of the company matters little. Megaconglomorates aren't going to burn money if they don't see the potential for big gains.

[monochrome]

In short, the size of the company matters little. Megaconglomorates aren't going to burn money if they don't see the potential for big gains.

Yes, that wwas my point - but the OP is convinced Pentax is Doomed because Ricoh is so much smaller than Samsung (and Sony, Mitsubishi and Canon). He suggests several times that the entire resources of the conglomerates are available to the camera companies.

[Sailor]

T. . . . . . . . . . . . I simply put out the raw data and assumed that people could, and would, come to their own conclusions about what the data may mean. . . . . . . . .

If that's your intent, then I suggest you delete the admonition for us to "Read it and Weep."

Jer