| Period | Type | Revenue | Profit* | Margin |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 1971/3 | Consolidated Revenue / Ordinary Income | - | - | - |
| 1972/3 | Consolidated Revenue / Ordinary Income | - | - | - |
| 1973/3 | Consolidated Revenue / Ordinary Income | - | - | - |
| 1974/3 | Consolidated Revenue / Ordinary Income | - | - | - |
| 1975/3 | Consolidated Revenue / Ordinary Income | - | - | - |
| 1976/3 | Consolidated Revenue / Ordinary Income | ¥9B | ¥1B | 11.0% |
| 1977/3 | Consolidated Revenue / Ordinary Income | ¥15B | ¥3B | 18.7% |
| 1978/3 | Consolidated Revenue / Ordinary Income | ¥24B | ¥5B | 20.0% |
| 1979/3 | Consolidated Revenue / Ordinary Income | ¥35B | ¥9B | 25.4% |
| 1980/3 | Consolidated Revenue / Ordinary Income | ¥50B | ¥16B | 31.6% |
| 1981/3 | Consolidated Revenue / Ordinary Income | ¥82B | ¥27B | 32.8% |
| 1982/3 | Consolidated Revenue / Ordinary Income | ¥92B | ¥32B | 34.7% |
| 1983/3 | Consolidated Revenue / Ordinary Income | ¥83B | ¥30B | 35.9% |
| 1984/3 | Consolidated Revenue / Ordinary Income | ¥115B | ¥44B | 37.9% |
| 1985/3 | Consolidated Revenue / Ordinary Income | ¥142B | ¥52B | 36.6% |
| 1986/3 | Consolidated Revenue / Ordinary Income | - | - | - |
| 1987/3 | Consolidated Revenue / Ordinary Income | - | - | - |
| 1988/3 | Consolidated Revenue / Ordinary Income | - | - | - |
| 1989/3 | Consolidated Revenue / Ordinary Income | - | - | - |
| 1980/3 | Consolidated Revenue / Ordinary Income | - | - | - |
| 1991/3 | Consolidated Revenue / Ordinary Income | - | - | - |
| 1992/3 | Consolidated Revenue / Ordinary Income | - | - | - |
| 1993/3 | Consolidated Revenue / Ordinary Income | - | - | - |
| 1994/3 | Consolidated Revenue / Ordinary Income | - | - | - |
| 1995/3 | Consolidated Revenue / Ordinary Income | - | - | - |
| 1996/3 | Consolidated Revenue / Ordinary Income | - | - | - |
| 1997/3 | Consolidated Revenue / Ordinary Income | - | - | - |
| 1998/3 | Consolidated Revenue / Ordinary Income | - | - | - |
| 1999/3 | Consolidated Revenue / Ordinary Income | - | - | - |
| 2000/3 | Consolidated Revenue / Ordinary Income | - | - | - |
| 2001/3 | Consolidated Revenue / Ordinary Income | - | - | - |
| 2002/3 | Consolidated Revenue / Ordinary Income | - | - | - |
| 2003/3 | Consolidated Revenue / Ordinary Income | - | - | - |
| 2004/3 | Consolidated Revenue / Ordinary Income | ¥265B | ¥90B | 33.9% |
| 2005/3 | Consolidated Revenue / Ordinary Income | ¥330B | ¥125B | 37.7% |
| 2006/3 | Consolidated Revenue / Ordinary Income | ¥381B | ¥151B | 39.5% |
| 2007/3 | Consolidated Revenue / Ordinary Income | ¥420B | ¥179B | 42.7% |
| 2008/3 | Consolidated Revenue / Ordinary Income | ¥468B | ¥210B | 44.8% |
| 2009/3 | Consolidated Revenue / Ordinary Income | ¥388B | ¥142B | 36.5% |
| 2010/3 | Consolidated Revenue / Ordinary Income | ¥253B | ¥60B | 23.6% |
| 2011/3 | Consolidated Revenue / Ordinary Income | ¥446B | ¥195B | 43.7% |
| 2012/3 | Consolidated Revenue / Ordinary Income | ¥538B | ¥229B | 42.4% |
| 2013/3 | Consolidated Revenue / Ordinary Income | ¥498B | ¥191B | 38.3% |
| 2014/3 | Consolidated Revenue / Ordinary Income | ¥451B | ¥174B | 38.6% |
| 2015/3 | Consolidated Revenue / Ordinary Income | ¥730B | ¥312B | 42.7% |
| 2016/3 | Consolidated Revenue / Ordinary Income | ¥623B | ¥229B | 36.7% |
| 2017/3 | Consolidated Revenue / Ordinary Income | ¥537B | ¥169B | 31.4% |
| 2018/3 | Consolidated Revenue / Ordinary Income | ¥727B | ¥250B | 34.3% |
| 2019/3 | Consolidated Revenue / Ordinary Income | ¥636B | ¥183B | 28.8% |
| 2020/3 | Consolidated Revenue / Ordinary Income | ¥598B | ¥103B | 17.1% |
| 2021/3 | Consolidated Revenue / Ordinary Income | ¥551B | ¥129B | 23.3% |
| 2022/3 | Consolidated Revenue / Ordinary Income | ¥733B | ¥213B | 29.0% |
The fact that FANUC's NC business began as an internal project at Fujitsu holds significant meaning from a business structure perspective. Entering in the 1950s when the market was immature and enduring approximately 10 years of losses was possible only because of the stable revenue base provided by Fujitsu's telecommunications equipment business. During a period when survival itself would have been difficult for an independent venture, Inaba Seiuemon was able to concentrate on developing foundational technology and securing patents. This technological foundation, accumulated under the 'umbrella of a large corporation,' became the source of competitive advantage when FANUC came to dominate the NC market after its independence in 1972.
In the 1950s, Fujitsu, then a Japanese telecommunications equipment manufacturer, had articulated a '3C Vision' to expand beyond its traditional communications (Communication) business into computers (Computer) and control (Control). In 1956, Omi Hanzou, the managing director in charge of technology, appointed his subordinate Inaba Seiuemon to lead the control division. Research and development of 'NC (Numeric Control)'—the computer-based numerical control of machine tool movements—began as an internal project at Fujitsu. This was the origin of the business that would later be spun off as FANUC.
At the time, NC technology was pioneered in the United States, but it remained an unexplored field in Japan. While Fujitsu positioned NC as a new business pillar alongside its computer operations, the market that required NC control was itself immature, and there was no clear path to commercialization. Inaba Seiuemon worked on establishing the foundational technology for NC control while exploring a business model of supplying technology to domestic machine tool manufacturers, beginning with Makino Milling Machine. To this day, machine tool manufacturers remain FANUC's primary customers.
In 1959, Inaba Seiuemon invented the 'electro-hydraulic pulse motor' used in machine tool drive mechanisms and obtained a patent. This technology enabled precise position control for NC, establishing Fujitsu's NC business as a technological pioneer in Japan. The patent on this proprietary technology would later form the technological foundation for FANUC's domination of the general-purpose NC market.
However, partly due to the high cost of computers, Fujitsu's NC business continued to operate at a loss for approximately 10 years after entry. This period is internally referred to at FANUC as the 'Age of the Gods'—a time of technology accumulation without any visibility into commercial viability. The business finally turned its first profit in 1965, and in 1972, the NC business was spun off from Fujitsu to establish 'Fujitsu FANUC.'
The fact that FANUC's NC business began as an internal project at Fujitsu holds significant meaning from a business structure perspective. Entering in the 1950s when the market was immature and enduring approximately 10 years of losses was possible only because of the stable revenue base provided by Fujitsu's telecommunications equipment business. During a period when survival itself would have been difficult for an independent venture, Inaba Seiuemon was able to concentrate on developing foundational technology and securing patents. This technological foundation, accumulated under the 'umbrella of a large corporation,' became the source of competitive advantage when FANUC came to dominate the NC market after its independence in 1972.
It was 1956, I believe, when Mr. Omi, who was the managing director in charge of technology, said to me, 'Inaba, the era of 3C will surely come. I want you to develop Control.' That was the first time I learned that Fuji Tsushinki would be venturing into the Computer and Control fields in addition to the Communication field it had traditionally been engaged in. The management of Fujitsu at that time had already foreseen the arrival of the '3C' era.
At Mr. Omi's command, project teams were immediately formed. Ikeda Toshio, who had joined the company in the same year as me and excelled in mathematics, was appointed as leader of the computer development team, and I was appointed as leader of the control development team—but we were both just slightly past thirty.
Ikeda specialized in electrical engineering and I in mechanical engineering, but we were both stubborn by nature and allowed no compromise in our work. Because of this, we frequently clashed with our superiors and were apparently regarded as rather eccentric engineers within the company. However, both Ikeda and I had the confidence that when it came to indomitable spirit and the ability to see things through to the end when faced with a challenge, we would yield to no one—and perhaps Mr. Omi had seen through to that aspect of our characters.
The large-scale investment in ROBODRILL embedded dependence on a single product—the iPhone—into FANUC's earnings structure. Unlike the NC device business, which supplies a broad range of machine tool manufacturers, ROBODRILL demand is concentrated on specific products for specific customers such as Hon Hai and Samsung. While this structure brings rapid sales expansion during booms, it caused a 60% profit decline when iPhone demand weakened in 2019. The fact that FANUC—which had built stable earnings through monopoly of general-purpose products—incorporated a single-product-linked business represents a structural transformation.
Around 2010, Apple's iPhone production volume surged, driving increased demand for the 'ROBODRILL,' a compact machine tool used to machine aluminum housings through cutting. iPhones are manufactured by precisely milling aluminum blocks, and at the EMS facilities of Hon Hai Precision Industry in China, ROBODRILL procurement became urgent in proportion to iPhone production increases. For FANUC, a new growth driver had emerged after NC devices and robots.
The expansion of the smartphone market was not limited to iPhones; similar ROBODRILL demand arose from Samsung Electronics' smartphone production in South Korea. FANUC expanded its business with Samsung, and by FY2014, sales to Samsung reached 93.9 hundred million yen. The structural demand shift driven by the global proliferation of smartphones was beginning to significantly impact FANUC's business portfolio.
Around 2011, FANUC decided on mass-production investment for the ROBODRILL. Production lines at the Tsukuba Factory in Ibaraki Prefecture were expanded, and a shipping system for Chinese EMS manufacturers was established. FANUC's capital expenditure in FY2011 amounted to 45.7 hundred million yen, with the main components being the construction of a new robot factory at the headquarters and the expansion of ROBODRILL production capacity at the Tsukuba Factory. This was a decision to direct large-scale investment not only into NC devices as component supply but also into mass production of the ROBODRILL as an end product.
As a result of this investment, throughout the 2010s, FANUC significantly expanded its sales to Asia (primarily China and South Korea). However, the ROBODRILL was characterized by demand concentration on specific products for specific customers, creating a structure where performance was influenced by iPhone production cycles and model changes. In fact, in 2019, demand for iPhone-related ROBODRILLs declined, and FANUC recorded a 60% profit decline.
The large-scale investment in ROBODRILL embedded dependence on a single product—the iPhone—into FANUC's earnings structure. Unlike the NC device business, which supplies a broad range of machine tool manufacturers, ROBODRILL demand is concentrated on specific products for specific customers such as Hon Hai and Samsung. While this structure brings rapid sales expansion during booms, it caused a 60% profit decline when iPhone demand weakened in 2019. The fact that FANUC—which had built stable earnings through monopoly of general-purpose products—incorporated a single-product-linked business represents a structural transformation.