It's interesting to speculate about an industrial Rome, but I'm more convinced that the industrial revolution was just as much facilitated by the political and economic institutions of 18th century England, things that Rome never had.
The story about "flexible glass" during the reign of Tiberius Caesar is probably false, but illustrates how technological innovation is expected to be received when there are powerful gatekeepers to broad technological change: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_glass
Entrenched interests usually would much rather maintain the status quo than enable anything potentially disruptive. The industrial revolution started because it was infeasible for any one powerful group in England to oppose innovation.
The story about "flexible glass" during the reign of Tiberius Caesar is probably false, but illustrates how technological innovation is expected to be received when there are powerful gatekeepers to broad technological change: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flexible_glass
You see similar actions by technophobic rulers in Ming China following the voyages of Zheng He or even in 16th century England: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Lee_(inventor)
Entrenched interests usually would much rather maintain the status quo than enable anything potentially disruptive. The industrial revolution started because it was infeasible for any one powerful group in England to oppose innovation.