Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 1999/05/02
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]Cameras have not been a terribly profitable field for many, many years. Successful camera companies are small parts of large concerns, as is true, as well for optical works. Zeiss makes almost all of its substantial profit from industrial, scientific, technical, and industrial optics, and Zeiss Ikon was unprofitable for most of its existence as a camera company. When the Zeiss Foundation refused to allow the Zeiss lensworks to subsidize Zeiss Ikon any longer, Zeiss Ikon quit making cameras. (As happened with the British motor industry, you can lose money on every item you sell, to the point where it only hurts you more as your success in the marketplace rises. This happened to Zeiss Ikon then, and has been happening to Nikon in recent years.) Nikon is a grand parallal to Zeiss Ikon. It is part of the Mitsubishi conglomerate. As such, the overall concern is profitable, less so in recent years than currently. If the corporate "bean counters" decide that corporate profits no longer allow Nikon to be subsidized, it will be gone. And REMEMBER THIS, GUYS: those "corporate bean-counters" so many of you love to lambaste have both a legal and moral duty to MAKE PROFITS for the stock-holders. If they deliberately choose to lose money, they are breaching this duty and can be sued. This happened to Henry Ford in '22 when he wanted to sell the Model T at slightly above cost, though the market would have easily supported a much higher price. The stockholders sued Henry, and won, and Henry then bought the company back and it remained a private enterprise, non-corporate, for decades. The US government brought criminal charges against some corporate managers back in the '60's for breaching this same duty, though, as I recall, the Courts only allowed civil, and not criminal, judgements. Canon is in a much healthier position, as its optical and camera divisions are just divisions within a much larger works. And Canon has come to dominate that portion of the industrial and technical optics field that Zeiss hasn't gotten to: for instance, Canon makes most of the optical components for copy machines, scanners, and FAXes regardless of make. (Nikon has a similar position in scientific optics, but that is a much smaller field with much less profit.) So, yes, Nikon is in trouble, and the prevelance of its products in the marketplace doesn't indicate much at all, save that it is selling a lot; large sales don't mean it is making money. I understand, though, that Nikon's bleakest days came in the early 1990's, when Mitsubishi put them on notice that they had to make profits, a threat later withdrawn. (After all, a thousand people know Nikon cameras to everyone who realizes that Mitsubishi owns a major ship-building works and is getting back into aviation, a field they have tended to stay out of since their last effort, the Zero fighter, left production a half-century back! My point is that there is a lot of name recognition attached to a flagship camera line, and Mitsubishi recognizes the advertising value in this.) So, I don't expect Zeiss Ikon to come back to life, nor do I expect Canon to go away or Nikon either, though Nikon is having a rocky time at present, and its continued existence is not entirely safe. Marc msmall@roanoke.infi.net FAX: +540/343-7315 Cha robh bas fir gun ghras fir!