Mmm. As late as the 18th century, China's level of development (and let's be careful here, China is like saying "Europe"was pretty similar to Europe's in a lot of ways. Some fewer advances; less science (but see Japan's Dutch Learning, for an idea on how to fix that), but probably a sturdier industrial package and a freer market.
Well, it wasn't the gadgets as much as the economics. To writ, there was no need for industrial revolution in China because it had labor and crafts that were superior to early stages of IR. IIRC, it took Britain until mid-19th century to surpass iron production in just north China, let alone entire China. And just as Qianglong said, there was nothing early IR could offer to China that China couldn't do just as well with traditional handicraft and abundant skilled labor. The crucial importance of railroads was military, and that was something even Europe didn't quite realize until 1860's. This is why I think China as whole was just too big and prosperous for the early stages of IR to be preferable to traditional economic structure. It would take divided, mercantile China for IR to have any chance at all. It was no accident that the Southern Song was the only imperial period when imperial receipts from trade surpassed that of agriculture-- because China was divided.