# Canon to Buy Video Surveillance Leader Axis for $2.8b



## Canon Rumors Guy (Feb 12, 2015)

```
<p>Canon appears to be going forward with their security camera business. With the shrinking consumer camera market, Canon is being aggressive in a space that is projected to see a lot of growth.</p>
<p><strong>TOKYO/STOCKHOLM, Feb 10 (Reuters)</strong> – Canon Inc made a 23.6 billion-Swedish-crown ($2.83 billion) offer for network video surveillance leader Axis AB on Tuesday — the biggest purchase ever for the Japanese firm trying to expand beyond a shrinking camera market.</p>
<p>Canon said it had launched a bid to buy all the Swedish company’s shares at 340 crowns apiece, a premium of nearly 50 percent to their closing price of 226.90 on Monday. At 1126 GMT, shares of Axis were up 48 percent at 336.50 crowns.</p>
<p>Axis said its board of directors unanimously supported the offer, and that three of its top shareholders representing around 40 percent of total shares will accept it.</p>
<p>Canon already sells surveillance cameras and sees the sector as a growing market, although it has not disclosed how much it earns from such products.</p>
<p><!--more--></p>
<p>The deal will make Canon a top player in the video surveillance market, which was worth an estimated $15 billion at the end of last year, according to researcher IHS.</p>
<p>Within that market, there is a $3.86 billion segment for network-connected security cameras which is led by Axis with a 17.5 percent share as of 2013.</p>
<p>Greger Johansson, analyst at research firm Redeye who had a bull case scenario of 250 crowns per share, said he thought the main owners had been unwilling to sell below 300 crowns as Axis had high revenue growth and was the No. 1 player in its market.</p>
<p>“We think some of the bigger players like Panasonic, Sony and Pelco could be interested… although the likelihood is relatively low considering the high bid.”</p>
<p>The deal comes after Canon late last month reported a slight increase in fourth-quarter profit, as a weaker yen and rising sales of office equipment offset weakness in a camera division competing with smartphones capable of high-quality imaging.</p>
<p>The company, which earned over 80 percent of its revenue overseas in 2014, said it would pay in cash.</p>
<p>Axis’ is targeting average annual growth of at least 20 percent and a profit margin of at least 10 percent. The company reported a fourth-quarter operating profit of 199 million crowns, slightly below analyst forecasts but up from 166 million a year earlier.</p>
<p>Around half of its sales come from the Americas, 40 percent from Europe, the Middle East and Africa, and the rest from Asia.</p>
<p>Axis said it will remain as a separate legal entity within Canon, and that its current management team will stay. ($1 = 8.3486 Swedish crowns) (Reporting by Ritsuko Ando,<a href="http://blogs.reuters.com/search/journalist.php?edition=us&n=chris.gallagher&">Chris Gallagher</a> and Olof Swahnberg; Editing by Miral Fahmy, Christopher Cushing and Crispian Balmer)</p>
<p>Source: [<a href="http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/02/10/axis-canon-idUSL4N0VK3QS20150210" target="_blank">Reuters</a>]</p>
```


----------



## canonvoir (Feb 12, 2015)

I manage a lot of these cameras at work for video surveillance. Axis is a very good line of surveillance cameras and you get a top notch product.


----------



## Lee Jay (Feb 12, 2015)

Ooo..ahh.

I've often wanted an Axis camera with an SX50 optics module for long-range use on a large, outdoor site.

I have Axis camera that have a "gain" range from 0 to 62db. I'm not really sure what that means. Is 3db the same as one stop in their mapping? I can't believe these tiny 1/3" sensor can rationally get to ISOs near 200 million, even in full spectrum.


----------



## waldi72 (Feb 12, 2015)

So that's why Canon was busy with new low light sensor tech development 
http://petapixel.com/2013/09/13/canon-debuts-exciting-prototype-sensor-exceptional-low-light-capability/
I think buying some video surveillance company was planned long time ago.


----------



## DominoDude (Feb 12, 2015)

You can also see my post from the other day about this.. Posted a few minutes after it became official.
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=25063.msg494740#msg494740


----------



## EchoLocation (Feb 12, 2015)

I'm not a business person, so I'm going to give an emotional reaction rather than a monetary one(cue Neuro's condescending comments.) 
I think this is lame. I like photography, not video surveillance. In fact, I hate the direction the world is headed, more and more surveillance, spying, drones, the patriot act, lack of privacy, etc. 
A company like Axis is the exact kind of company that I would never invest my money in, no matter how much money was to be made. I don't buy stock in oil companies, private security firms, drone manufacturers, or things like this.
I'm sure many disagree with me, but for me this a huge reason to think that Canon is not about photography, or any sort of positive creativity, but rather just about making money in any way possible. I know this is fairly obvious in retrospect, but for me, if given the choice, I'd prefer to support a different camera manufacturer, who wasn't investing billions of dollars diminishing my privacy.
While I may buy Canon products in the future, this is not the sort of thing that will encourage me stay loyal to their brand.


----------



## DominoDude (Feb 12, 2015)

EchoLocation said:


> I'm not a business person, so I'm going to give an emotional reaction rather than a monetary one(cue Neuro's condescending comments.)
> I think this is lame. I like photography, not video surveillance. In fact, I hate the direction the world is headed, more and more surveillance, spying, drones, the patriot act, lack of privacy, etc.
> A company like Axis is the exact kind of company that I would never invest my money in, no matter how much money was to be made. I don't buy stock in oil companies, private security firms, drone manufacturers, or things like this.
> I'm sure many disagree with me, but for me this a huge reason to think that Canon is not about photography, or any sort of positive creativity, but rather just about making money in any way possible. I know this is fairly obvious in retrospect, but for me, if given the choice, I'd prefer to support a different camera manufacturer, who wasn't investing billions of dollars diminishing my privacy.
> While I may buy Canon products in the future, this is not the sort of thing that will encourage me stay loyal to their brand.



If I remember correctly there was a serious amount of traffic cameras stolen in NY city a couple of years ago. It was later revealed that it was all Nikon *D-series cameras in them. So, you won't be able to buy that brand either.

I think that what you are against is one of the possible uses of these systems, and there are a multitude of nonintrusive uses of their systems.

It's not like we can, or should, ban explosives or ammonium nitrate just because it can be used with bad intent. Nitroglycerine is an explosive compound, but it can be used in medicine as well.


----------



## sanj (Feb 12, 2015)

How much DR?


----------



## IglooEater (Feb 12, 2015)

I for one am glad to hear that, even though I dislike the thought of not being able to go anywhere without being spied upon. Someone is going to make this technology- if not canon, someone else will. At least with Canon there is a chance of the developments in that technology filtering down into camera technology and then being used to inspire and lift up, rather than spy on people. With a dedicated surveillance company that would never happen. O well


----------



## JohanCruyff (Feb 12, 2015)

Call me a dinosaur, but I don't like this kind of news.
It would be great to read Canon to invest $2.8b in a new plant / new technology / new materials etc. with direct impact on their cameras.


----------



## IglooEater (Feb 12, 2015)

JohanCruyff said:


> Call me a dinosaur, but I don't like this kind of news.
> It would be great to read Canon to invest $2.8b in a new plant / new technology / new materials etc. with direct impact on their cameras.



Very, very true, and I wholeheartedly agree with you. I just meant in my comment that I'd rather canon be doing it than another company. I would, however, like you, rather hear that canon was investing more directly in new tech for cameras


----------



## Lee Jay (Feb 12, 2015)

EchoLocation said:


> I'm not a business person, so I'm going to give an emotional reaction rather than a monetary one(cue Neuro's condescending comments.)
> I think this is lame. I like photography, not video surveillance. In fact, I hate the direction the world is headed, more and more surveillance, spying, drones, the patriot act, lack of privacy, etc.
> A company like Axis is the exact kind of company that I would never invest my money in, no matter how much money was to be made. I don't buy stock in oil companies, private security firms, drone manufacturers, or things like this.
> I'm sure many disagree with me, but for me this a huge reason to think that Canon is not about photography, or any sort of positive creativity, but rather just about making money in any way possible. I know this is fairly obvious in retrospect, but for me, if given the choice, I'd prefer to support a different camera manufacturer, who wasn't investing billions of dollars diminishing my privacy.
> While I may buy Canon products in the future, this is not the sort of thing that will encourage me stay loyal to their brand.



I have 20 Axis cameras where I work. They are used to monitor research equipment. They are incredibly useful. When something happens (an unusual event, something failing, whatever) we catch it. When I need to see something that's going on (like a crane lift, a tower climb, a large delivery, etc.) I can use the cameras to ensure it's being done correctly and safely.

I think the current paranoia about surveillance is just silly. You have no reasonable expectation of privacy when you are outside, even in your back yard (by supreme court ruling). So what? If people really want to watch me playing in the back with my kids, mowing my lawn, or going to the store, let them have at it. And "drones"? People paranoid about drones are really clueless. You can do a lot more spying by standing inside your house with a pair of binoculars than by flying an R/C aircraft with a fisheye video camera on it.


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Feb 12, 2015)

Another way to think about this:

If Canon can make larger profits with Axis, it will give Canon more money to invest back into their other business areas. 

Buy a more profitable line in order to fund a less profitable line is a common business practice.


----------



## agierke (Feb 12, 2015)

AcutancePhotography said:


> Another way to think about this:
> 
> If Canon can make larger profits with Axis, it will give Canon more money to invest back into their other business areas.
> 
> Buy a more profitable line in order to fund a less profitable line is a common business practice.



yup. i think its a smart business play. just like canons office copier business. huge market with potentially huge profits.

this news has no bearing on canons commitment to or direction they are heading with their DSLR business outside of making canon a healthier company as a whole.


----------



## LDS (Feb 12, 2015)

EchoLocation said:


> I think this is lame. I like photography, not video surveillance.



There's "good" surveillance and bad one. Exactly like there's good photography and bad one. The very camera and lens you use (and often the better ones...) can be used by paparazzi to harass people and violate their privacy. It can be used by stalkers and other very bad people to harass their victims. So should Canon stop making cameras because of this? If you have a warehouse or other kind of property you may want surveillance to keep thieves away and identify them is something bad happens. Then surveillance can become something nasty and against your rights... but it can regardless if Canon sells those cameras or not.


----------



## DominoDude (Feb 12, 2015)

For those that don't like surveillance, here's a few examples of items to keep a healthy distance to: Samsung's Smart TV, Apple's iPhone, and Sony had a really nasty rootkit (XCP) that got installed on a number of PCs a few years ago.
I could name a few other items that we are likely to have in our homes that have a good potential to "phone home" or that can be exploited through the sometimes hard coded passwords they come with.
Or perhaps you work for a company that have a large laser printer with a built in hard drive and a NIC in it? If that item faces the Internet, I'm pretty sure it's possible to dig out a lot of old documents from that hard drive.

The possibility to monitor what we do, are far larger than many of us think... Visit a seminar about security to learn more and get scared.


----------



## V8Beast (Feb 12, 2015)

EchoLocation said:


> I'm not a business person, so I'm going to give an emotional reaction rather than a monetary one(cue Neuro's condescending comments.)
> I think this is lame. I like photography, not video surveillance. In fact, I hate the direction the world is headed, more and more surveillance, spying, drones, the patriot act, lack of privacy, etc.
> A company like Axis is the exact kind of company that I would never invest my money in, no matter how much money was to be made. I don't buy stock in oil companies, private security firms, drone manufacturers, or things like this.
> I'm sure many disagree with me, but for me this a huge reason to think that Canon is not about photography, or any sort of positive creativity, but rather just about making money in any way possible. I know this is fairly obvious in retrospect, but for me, if given the choice, I'd prefer to support a different camera manufacturer, who wasn't investing billions of dollars diminishing my privacy.
> While I may buy Canon products in the future, this is not the sort of thing that will encourage me stay loyal to their brand.



I despise the government spying on its citizens, but security cameras should be the least of anyone's worries. Even without drones or security cameras, the NSA can track your every last movement every second of the day. We sure make it easy for them by carrying around mobile devices with cameras and microphones on them already. Considering the the NSA has already hacked tech titans like Google and Apple in the past, who's to say that they couldn't hack into the operating system of your favorite mobile device, and use your own property to spy on you? 

This used to be the talk of crazy conspiracy theorists, but the leaked Snowden documents confirmed people's worst suspicions. Ever heard of PRISM? The NSA successfully hacked into all the data collected by Google, Apple, Yahoo, Facebook, etc. without those companies even knowing about it. The NSA has so much freakin' data that it built a new data storage facility in the Utah desert that can store billions of gigabytes of data. 

Even if you go dark by throwing all your computers and mobile devices in the trash, DARPA has figured out a way to insert electrodes into the head of a moth, and tap into its nervous system to fly it remotely. Stick a camera on its head, and you've got yourself a rather clandestine spy tool 

So yeah, security cameras are the least sophisticated and devious tools in the government's bag of spy tools


----------



## cbphoto (Feb 12, 2015)

> Canon is being aggressive in a space that is projected to see a lot of growth.



Exponential growth if governments world-wide have any say in the matter.


----------



## kphoto99 (Feb 12, 2015)

AcutancePhotography said:


> Another way to think about this:
> 
> If Canon can make larger profits with Axis, it will give Canon more money to invest back into their other business areas.
> 
> Buy a more profitable line in order to fund a less profitable line is a common business practice.



Since Canon has a finite supply of money: Another way to think about this:

Canon just spend $2.8b on Axis so they don't have the money to spend on a modern fab line for an improved sensor.

Canon just spend $2.8b on Axis so they don't have the money to spend on R&D for the less profitable products: DSLR

Canon just spend $2.8b on Axis, they think the growth is in security and not in DSLR, so move the technical staff to this area away from a dying field of DSLR.


----------



## DominoDude (Feb 12, 2015)

Instead of bringing our own personal fears and economical scepticism into this, we could also look at it from another point of view.
In Lund, Sweden, where Axis HQ is situated, there's a university which creates a lot of good engineers. Right now Sony, who took over Ericsson's cell phones, are contemplating how many hundreds of people they should lay off in Lund. Axis grows and thrives, and with Canon as a new owner they can continue to do so for many years. This creates a stability and can give many new engineers chance to find a good and interesting job in Lund, or elsewhere, globally, in Canon. The feelings that people have from what is happening at Sony is not exactly of the same kind...

You see, even to this coin there is more than one side.


----------



## jeffa4444 (Feb 13, 2015)

I don't know why this should be a problem a similar type of purchase was made by Olympus in 2008 when it bought a UK medical company for $ 2.2BN and rolled it in with its own medical business this group controls 70% of the global endoscope market and they have maintained and grown the UK business they purchased. 
Canon is only mirroring the leveraging of CMOS sensors across multiple markets and surveillance is here to stay if you think you've too many cameras in the US come to the UK the country with the most cameras full stop. 

I don't think it changes anything at their photography unit.


----------



## IglooEater (Feb 13, 2015)

I realize that there are great and wonderful uses for surveillance equipment, and I also realize that it's impossible to live life *not* being watched. (I've a friend who's into Internet security). However I think much of our reaction to over-surveillance (at least in my case) is not so much distress at being watched as at the realization that our society has so lost any underlying sense of morality that there are enough of us that *need* to be watched as to merit that kind of investment.
Sorry, thought I'd clear up why I'm not fond of surveillance- it's not the surveillance itself


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Feb 13, 2015)

kphoto99 said:


> Canon just spend $2.8b on Axis



Buying a company for $2.9b does not necessarily mean that Canon writes a check for the 2.8. When companies that large buy out other large companies the actually "buying" can take many forms and can take a while.


----------



## Lee Jay (Feb 13, 2015)

AcutancePhotography said:


> kphoto99 said:
> 
> 
> > Canon just spend $2.8b on Axis
> ...



It's a cash offer.

http://www.canon.com/news/2015/feb10e.html

"Canon Announces Public Cash Offer to the Shareholders of Axis"


----------



## rrcphoto (Feb 13, 2015)

AcutancePhotography said:


> kphoto99 said:
> 
> 
> > Canon just spend $2.8b on Axis
> ...


it's a cash deal.

canon has around 4B cash sitting in the kitty.


----------



## rrcphoto (Feb 13, 2015)

kphoto99 said:


> AcutancePhotography said:
> 
> 
> > Another way to think about this:
> ...



and the eeyore t-shirt of the day goes to... 

this has nothing to do with money spent on R&D as that comes out of their sales, if you had spent something like 30 seconds looking at canon's financial data.

and besides a "modern" fab line that can produce 65nm chips certainly isn't 2.8billion. not even intel's latest 10nm fab was that much.


----------



## rrcphoto (Feb 13, 2015)

jeffa4444 said:


> I don't know why this should be a problem a similar type of purchase was made by Olympus in 2008 when it bought a UK medical company for $ 2.2BN and rolled it in with its own medical business this group controls 70% of the global endoscope market and they have maintained and grown the UK business they purchased.
> Canon is only mirroring the leveraging of CMOS sensors across multiple markets and surveillance is here to stay if you think you've too many cameras in the US come to the UK the country with the most cameras full stop.
> 
> I don't think it changes anything at their photography unit.



if anything it should ease some of the pressure on the imaging group to produce profits.


----------



## slclick (Feb 14, 2015)

They're wasting my money when they could be working on my DR wet dream!


----------



## AcutancePhotography (Feb 14, 2015)

wow, I did not know it was a cash deal like that. Yikes


----------



## gwflauto (Feb 15, 2015)

I am happy, that many public places are equipped with surveillance cameras, because they reduce the crime rate in those locations substancially. I am shure, world wide the need for surveillance cameras will increase in years to come. Growth perspective is quite good.
Canon will be able to dilute their research and development costs, since they will be able to spred costs over a much larger number of sensors.
I am very happy, that canon did this deal. On the long run, we will also see benefits in the camera business.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 15, 2015)

gwflauto said:


> I am happy, that many public places are equipped with surveillance cameras, because they reduce the crime rate in those locations substancially. I am shure, world wide the need for surveillance cameras will increase in years to come. Growth perspective is quite good.
> Canon will be able to dilute their research and development costs, since they will be able to spred costs over a much larger number of sensors.
> I am very happy, that canon did this deal. On the long run, we will also see benefits in the camera business.



Security cameras don't reduce crime, they move just it.


----------



## Lee Jay (Feb 15, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> gwflauto said:
> 
> 
> > I am happy, that many public places are equipped with surveillance cameras, because they reduce the crime rate in those locations substancially. I am shure, world wide the need for surveillance cameras will increase in years to come. Growth perspective is quite good.
> ...



So, put them everywhere and then where will it move?


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 15, 2015)

Really?


*1984*


----------



## Lee Jay (Feb 15, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> Really?
> 
> 
> *1984*



There is a difference - and a dramatic one - between surveillance in locations in which you don't have a reasonable expectation of privacy, and locations in which you do. In 1984, surveillance was extended into the home, and not only remote surveillance but also in-person.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 15, 2015)

You'd like to think that wouldn't you.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2950081/It-s-not-just-smart-TVs-home-gadgets-spy-internet-giants-collecting-personal-data-high-tech-devices.html


----------



## Lee Jay (Feb 15, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> You'd like to think that wouldn't you.
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2950081/It-s-not-just-smart-TVs-home-gadgets-spy-internet-giants-collecting-personal-data-high-tech-devices.html



First, I don't have one. Second, any device I have that has a front-facing camera has that camera disabled in a hacker-proof way (physically blocked - black electrical tape works great for this). Finally, this is Samsung being stupid, not a government actively suppressing their citizens on purpose as in 1984.


----------



## slclick (Feb 15, 2015)

Amazon Echo


----------



## Sten Ch (Feb 15, 2015)

I think it ie VERY good. 
Axix is a local business and I have always had faith in them, which has just proven to be quite true. I owned 750 shares in Axis and when I woke up last Tuesday I suddenly had made an extra profit of more than $10 000 after tax. I immediately sold the shares and ordered the new 5DS R and will probably use the rest of the money for a trip to Churchill in November in order to photograph polar bears.
Thank you Canon!


----------



## gwflauto (Feb 15, 2015)

privatebydesign said:


> gwflauto said:
> 
> 
> > I am happy, that many public places are equipped with surveillance cameras, because they reduce the crime rate in those locations substancially. I am shure, world wide the need for surveillance cameras will increase in years to come. Growth perspective is quite good.
> ...


They move it and reduce it overall, when installed at the proper location. And I am happy about the neighbors' camera too. And I am glad, that my kid can return home safely, since those dangerous spots in our town don't exist anymore.


----------



## privatebydesign (Feb 15, 2015)

gwflauto said:


> privatebydesign said:
> 
> 
> > gwflauto said:
> ...



No they don't reduce it overall, the reporting criteria is changed so the numbers look like they go down. That way we can be sold on ever lower crime figures with fewer police actually out on the street, meanwhile we put up with ever more surveillance of law abiding citizens. We are told it is going in the right direction because that is what they want to tell us and we want to hear. Meanwhile we have become nations who live in constant fear of either having our children abducted, or being accused of abducting or abusing them, of a 'war on terror' that means we are subjected to completely ineffectual manhandling by TSA, and the police and their equivalents at every opportunity. Any and every invasion and theft of our collective rights is blamed on a need to guard against 'the terrorists', which has become a byword for almost anybody that doesn't have the same point of view as the people in power.

But hey, if you believe it and it makes you feel good it has done it's job, just don't believe it has made any difference to the thieves, terrorists and never do wells...........


----------



## Valvebounce (Feb 15, 2015)

Hi Folks. 
Thought I would find this for you guys as it seems to be where you are heading, a bit off topic! ;D Not saying anyone is right or wrong. 
http://www.cctvcore.co.uk/forums/

Cheers, Graham.


----------

