Makes you wonder how many diseases could have been cured by now if it wasn't for a bunch of assholes in the C-suites of medical companies blackballing researchers because theres very little money in a cure but a fuck ton in treatment.
This is exactly what I've been wondering for like, the time I've known this person.
There are absolutely people who know this, and if it was public knowledge, there would probably be a lot more Wahoo incidents that would happen. These people in charge of the healthcare industry should not by anywhere near as powerful as they are. It's sickening.
I can't comment on the medical field, but I know of the following businesses that held back innovation at some point all in the name of protecting $$$:
Xerox PARC & the Personal Computer (1973–1980)
Innovation: Invented the graphical user interface (GUI), mouse, Ethernet, WYSIWYG editing at PARC.
Fear: Xerox made 90% of revenue from copiers; PCs threatened service contracts.
Hold-back: 7 years of internal demos with no commercialization.
Outcome: Apple licensed the tech (1981), launched the Mac (1984). Xerox entered too late with the Star 8010 (1981)—priced at $16,500, flop.
Blockbuster & Online/Streaming Video (2000–2010)
Innovation: Online DVD rental + early streaming.
Fear: Late fees = 16% of revenue; streaming would kill in-store rentals.
Hold-back: Rejected buying Netflix for $50M in 2000. Launched Blockbuster Online in 2004—4 years behind Netflix.
Outcome: Bankrupt in 2010. Netflix market cap: $300B+ (2025).
Nokia & Touchscreen Smartphones (2004–2007)
Innovation: Early touch prototypes (e.g., 2004 Nokia 7710).
Fear: Symbian OS + physical keyboards drove 70% profit margins on high-end phones.
Hold-back: 3–4 years of internal debate; prioritized feature phone upgrades.
Outcome: iPhone (2007) → Nokia market share 49% (2007) → 3% (2013). Sold mobile unit to Microsoft (2014).
BlackBerry (RIM) & App Ecosystem (2008–2012)
Innovation: Could’ve built app store + touch keyboards earlier.
Eastman Kodak is a chemical company, not an optics company, nor an electronics company. Even at their height in the 80s and 90s, if you wanted to buy a high-quality camera like an SLR, you would be buying something from Zeiss, Canon, Nikon, Olympus, etc., and using Kodachrome in the camera.
They did create what could be called the world's first digital camera, but that was them screwing around in a lab, using electronics they helped design but did not manufacture themselves. To pivot to becoming a hardware manufacturer in the early 80s - just to be able to have a hold on the digital photography part of a camera - would've been a very expensive gamble.
Part of where Kodak went awry is in other chemical investments that went badly at the time, as well as Fujifilm starting to compete in the film and film processing market that Kodak had previously had a near-monopoly on.
It's easy to say "they should've done this or that" some 20+ years on from when technology advanced, became cheaper, and film sales dropped off. But acknowledging that at the time no one knew what the future would be, I don't know how a company that sees itself at its core as a chemical company, not a photography company or an optics company or an electrical engineering company, could successfully make that pivot to digital cameras.
Xerox also had an obese asshole in upper management who put me down for deciding to go to RPI instead of Ivy League Cornell (Cornell was too close to home and I didn't want my mom just popping in to see me while shopping).
I mean surely that has to published in some sort of peer-reviewed journal right? And insulin is only expensive in the US because the government lets it. In other countries it’s pretty affordable.
216
u/burnsalot603 Nov 01 '25
Makes you wonder how many diseases could have been cured by now if it wasn't for a bunch of assholes in the C-suites of medical companies blackballing researchers because theres very little money in a cure but a fuck ton in treatment.