It's a classic example of a Christensen disruption. The disruptive technologies are often pioneered or even invented by "old guard" companies, but they ironically fail to capitalize on the invention, and eventually fall by the wayside as they're surpassed by younger upstarts.

It's been a while since I read the book ("The Innovator's Dilemma—a classic!), but IIRC, Christensen disruptions are characterized by:

- worse performance, but...

- better reliability and other characteristics, thus requiring...

- new markets to be developed that can use the technology, resulting in...

- steady improvement, leading to...

- cannibalizing the old technology "from below" as the new technology's performance becomes good enough to take over the old market, resulting in...

- the old sellers fleeing "up market" to higher margin, higher demand customers, ironically creating some of their best sales years, but...

- the disruptive technology marches on, continuing to erode the old technology's performance advantage, until finally...

- the old technology disappears and the old sellers have nothing to sell, and...

- the old sellers die.

The old sellers have trouble embracing the new technology because of the complex existing relationships with middle management, suppliers, and customers. It's not blindness—it's a major cultural upheaval, and it's almost impossible to overcome.

Electric drive trains (mainly engines + batteries + chargers) appear to fit the definition of a disruptive technology perfectly. I think companies like GM and Toyota are in trouble.