>>3467084> Why isn't America at the forefront of photographic technology?
Basically, Kodak dropped the ball. They decided they didn't want to make high end cameras and instead wanted to just concentrate on low-end cameras and their very profitable film business.
What's especially annoying is that they had a BIG headstart on digital, but they didn't want to invest too heavily in digital technology for fear that it would cannibalize their very profitable film sales. Spoiler alert: Since Kodak decided not to cannibalize their very profitable film sales, everyone else destroyed Kodak's very profitable film sales.
Basically the same deal with America's other big camera name, Polaroid. They didn't pay close attention to the fact that digital was about to eat their lunch, so they got fucked.
We never had a homegrown company that really produced good high-end cameras. So we didn't have anyone poised to make good high-end digital cameras when digital started becoming more of a thing. >>3467093
First off, that's bullshit /pol/ baiting.
Secondly, this all stems from the days when America was still thoroughly, openly, and cheerfully oppressing blacks, women, and minorities. We didn't have an equivalent to Nikon and Canon or even Leica, Zeiss, and Voigtländer in the 50s, 60s, 70s, and 80s. Gender/minority studies courses didn't start popping up until the 90s, when the US had already thoroughly dropped the ball on high-end cameras.
Third, if you actually look at any American university, people taking things like Gender studies are going to be vastly, *vastly* outnumbered by people taking STEM courses.
So fuck off with all of that bullshit.