Is the Solow Paradox merely one of optics rather than an actual economical conundrum?

Reading Wood's "Rise and Fall of American Growth" i've always understood the Solow Paradox as that of lacking historical context. The digital revolution completely changed our lives. It's just that whatever it may have changed how we work, industrialization was more meaningful by an order of magnitude. S

I've understood the problem was simply unfair comparison. You can't compare the effect of computing to that of owning a car, or having running water. As most of the world is keeping up, we run out of more countries to industrialize. So it's not that the effects of computing are a mystery. They are only a mystery in the productivity statistics if we were "previously spoiled" by double digit growth of countires still undergoing industrialization.

Is this accurate?