Toshiba fumbled the initial opportunity with NAND memory but went on to became a major player. The modern Kioxia is one of the largest makers in the world and a

Toshiba fumbled the initial opportunity with NAND memory but went on to became a major player. The modern Kioxia is one of the largest makers in the world and a direct spin-off of Toshiba’s memory division. They were motivated to claim that Masuoka was not the inventor of NAND because they would have owed him millions in inventors rights on the patents. Masuoka eventually sued and settled out of court. Line wasn’t particularly innovative. It’s basically a WhatsApp clone. It was mostly developed in Japan, by a team of mostly Japanese engineers, working at the subsidiary of a Korean company. It succeeded because of good timing and execution, not because it was innovative. The Mitsubishi Jet project had many problems. It was massively overtime and budget. Its design didn’t match the needs of foreign carriers. They didn’t have the right team in place to navigate the certification process. Seriously read the Japanese wiki page on it. It’s a good summary of where the project went wrong. I don’t see how any of this supports the conclusion that Japanese people are “too capable for their own good” and “so capable they are incapable”, or “incapable of recognising good tools”. There’s plenty of counter examples where Japanese companies have been innovative and pivoted. Look at Kodak vs Fuji Film. Kodak invented much of the underlying technology for digital cameras but failed to capitalise. Instead their business was disrupted by Japanese digital camera makers, eventually driving Kodak to bankruptcy. Meanwhile Fuji Film saw the writing on the wall and successfully pivoted.