Is Mitsubishi Missing a Sub-Brand—or Missing the Market Altogether?

Posted by on

 


Is Mitsubishi Missing a Sub-Brand—or Missing the Market Altogether?

Aging Corporation or Aging Nation?

Introduction

This is a business commentary. If that’s not your interest, feel free to skip.
But for engineers, it’s worth reading through.

In a professional career, you will encounter many inflection points. Delivering your work is essential—but understanding the underlying logic behind industry shifts is equally valuable.

This article covers:

  • Introduction
  • Mitsubishi’s Early Cultivation in China
  • Missed Historical Timing
  • Does Mitsubishi Still Hold Strong Cards?
  • Cultural Rigidity Behind the Scenes
  • Implications for Engineers

Introduction

On March 18, Mitsubishi Electric launched a new brand—Lingling—alongside the registration of a new entity: Mitsubishi Electric Intelligent Manufacturing Technology (China) Group Co., Ltd.

The scale of this move was significant. The launch event was held at the prestigious Shanghai Xijiao State Guest Hotel, attended by Shanghai municipal officials, the Japanese ambassador, and senior executives from Mitsubishi Corporation. The new entity was registered with a capital of RMB 550 million.

Public records show that the “Lingling” trademark was filed in October 2023 by Mitsubishi Electric Automation (China), with the logo registered in January 2024.

Structurally:

  • Mitsubishi Electric Automation (China) is the sole shareholder of the new group entity
  • Mitsubishi Electric Automation (China) itself is jointly funded by Mitsubishi Electric (China) and Mitsubishi Electric (Hong Kong)

The launch of Lingling signals Mitsubishi’s intent to enter—or re-enter—the economy segment of the automation market.

However, whether from a technological or market perspective, this move comes far too late.

Launching a new brand is not cost-free. The real question is: what strategic gap is it truly addressing?

Mitsubishi’s Early Cultivation in China

In China’s industrial history, if we ask who popularized PLC technology, three names stand out: Siemens, Mitsubishi, and Omron.

Before 2000, these companies invested heavily in:

  • Educational materials
  • University partnerships
  • Training programs

At that time, China had not yet joined the WTO, and its manufacturing strength had not fully emerged. But a unified market of over one billion people was impossible to ignore.

In the 1980s and 1990s:

  • Imported equipment brought PLCs into China
  • Demand for maintenance and commissioning engineers surged
  • Training programs by Siemens and Mitsubishi targeted this growing workforce

As Bill Gates once implied:
If they are going to copy, better they copy us.

Once engineers learned PLCs, they learned their ecosystems.

After China joined the WTO in the early 2000s, automation demand exploded. Mitsubishi’s earlier investments paid off—the FX series became one of the most widely used PLC platforms in China.

At one point, the ecosystem was so dominant that:

  • Hardware clones of Mitsubishi FX appeared
  • Some vendors sold boards capable of running Mitsubishi PLC programs directly
  • Even development software compatibility became a non-issue

This level of ecosystem penetration is rare—and demonstrates how deeply Mitsubishi once shaped the market.

Missed Historical Timing

Mitsubishi was not alone in facing cloning challenges. Siemens’ S7-200 also encountered similar issues in China.

However, Siemens responded differently:

  • Stronger legal enforcement
  • Deeper localization
  • More strategic product planning

Most importantly, Siemens made a critical long-term move:
the launch of the Smart product line.

Initially introduced around 2008–2010 (starting with drives), and later expanded to PLCs such as the S7-200 Smart, this strategy achieved two things:

  1. Downward market penetration into the economy segment
  2. Reinforcement of brand dominance through price-performance positioning

The result was a “dimensional strike” on competitors—especially Taiwanese brands—because:

  • End users often specify brand, not model
  • Siemens became the default choice even in lower-cost segments

In subsequent years, Siemens continued expanding this line (e.g., Smart remote I/O), reinforcing its position.

In contrast, Mitsubishi only introduced “Lingling” in 2025.

In Chinese, there is a saying:
“Starting early, but arriving late.”

Over a 40-year horizon, this describes Mitsubishi quite accurately.

Does Mitsubishi Still Hold Strong Cards?

Mitsubishi still has strong assets:

  • PLCs
  • Servo systems
  • Inverters

Its brand recognition remains high. In many large projects, specified vendors still include:

  • Siemens
  • Mitsubishi
  • Schneider
  • Rockwell Automation

However, the gaps are increasingly visible.

For example:

  • Mitsubishi only recently introduced EtherCAT-compatible servo systems—more than a decade behind competitors like Panasonic and Yaskawa
  • Earlier proprietary networks (CC-Link, SSCNET) limited openness and ecosystem expansion

Meanwhile, Siemens took a very different path:

  • Acquired UGS in 2006, entering CAD/PLM
  • Built a full digital thread from design to control
  • Combined high-end digitalization with low-end Smart products

This created a complete stack advantage:
from entry-level control to advanced digital manufacturing.

By the time Mitsubishi reacts, the market window is already closed.

Even the Lingling product lineup—focused on modular I/O and contactors—lacks strategic impact.

Without pricing or positioning adjustments on core products, such moves risk being symbolic rather than transformative.

Is Cultural Rigidity the Root Cause?

Mitsubishi is a 150-year-old organization, with roots dating back to the 1870s.

Like many large Japanese corporations, its challenges include:

  • Slow decision-making
  • Organizational rigidity
  • Institutional inertia

Japan once produced globally dominant innovators—Panasonic, Sony, Sharp—but many have struggled to adapt in the digital era.

Examples:

  • Japanese mobile phone brands were overtaken after the rise of the iPhone
  • Consumer electronics lost global relevance
  • The camera industry shrank or became professional-only

Today, only a few brands like Uniqlo and Keyence maintain strong global momentum.

This pattern reflects:

  • Declining market sensitivity
  • Resistance to structural change
  • Overconfidence in legacy strengths

A similar trajectory can be seen in companies like HTC, which rose rapidly but declined just as quickly due to strategic rigidity.

In contrast, Siemens—despite being even older—has demonstrated stronger adaptability and foresight.

Implications for Engineers

For engineers, the key lesson is simple:

Avoid rigidity.

When solving problems:

  • Seek first-hand data
  • Distinguish internal vs. external constraints
  • Focus on fundamentals, not assumptions

Consider how someone like Elon Musk approaches problems:

  • Direct information gathering
  • First-principles thinking
  • Rapid iteration

For example, when the market demands ultra-low-cost PLCs:

  • A large company must balance brand and pricing
  • Siemens’ answer was not “the cheapest,” but “cheap enough to disrupt competitors”

That is strategic positioning.

Closing Observation

Interestingly, on the same day as the Lingling launch, Mitsubishi also sponsored a women’s golf tournament—featured prominently on its official website.

Meanwhile, product information for Lingling remains minimal:

  • No detailed technical data
  • Only basic product images

The level of presentation appears almost comparable.

Which raises a final question:

Is this a serious strategic move—or simply a symbolic gesture?