So why do manufacturers put all the money in digital?...Because with film there were no worlds left to conquer. Digital opens up a new world of planned obsolescence that could not be stoked in the film word.
People with a profit to make are telling us the lie that digital photography is a "revolution" replacing film photography. This tactic makes economic sense for marketers hoping to capture more consumer dollars. If you pitch digital photography merely as an alternative to film, those already satisified with film may not be willing to pay the additional cost (in time, effort, and money) of adding digital technology to their repertoire (but many pros say this is exactly how they do use digital, e.g.: 1, 2).
But if you convince people that digital photography replaces film and makes film obsolete you capture a much larger market, i.e., anyone shopping for a new camera, or even every current film camera owner.
However, while the technology itself isn't revolutionary, its requirements are. Many skills learned in film photography are supplanted by completely different ones. Rather then relying on film's built-in "shoulder" and "toe," digital exposures should be calculated to "expose to the right." In the areas of computer image editing, digital file formats, color management, digital storage and backup, and digital print longevity (not to mention control of the digicam itself), skills never before required of the photographer must now be mastered.
So while the capabilities digital photography provides aren't truly "revolutionary," the demands it imposes on photographers truly are!