[moftz]

If you are doing something so well and making tons of money, why spend money on what will absolutely ruin your core business? Personal computers weren't just going to supplement the copier business, they would seriously ruin it. But there was also a chance computers would flop so why spend the money on trying to ruin your core business and not succeed? People found uses for computers that the pioneers could never imagine so why would some CEO be any more imaginative? Disruptive tech usually doesn't come from the big companies, it comes from little guys who can take the risk because they have nothing else to fall back on. The big companies only get into it when they see that there is an actual market.

[perl4ever]

Your summary doesn't address and can't possibly apply to the period from ~1980 to 2005, during which personal computers were well established.

Also, it's the exact same generic story people tell about, say, Kodak.

[mark-r]

Kodak gets picked on unfairly. They weren't completely blind to the digital camera revolution, they produced the first digital camera prototype but it was laughably incapable. Their problem was building a business model that took a cut from every picture snapped, from film to processing to printing. There was nothing in the digital camera model that could duplicate that revenue stream; even if they had sold every digital camera ever made, it would not have saved them. Their final undoing was overestimating the importance of printed pictures, in the end it turned out people would rather see their pictures on their screens.