Subject: Re: Myths of Economics: QWERTY: Fact or Myth??? 
       Date: 17 Feb 1998 02:14:01 GMT 
       From: susupply@aol.com (SUSUPPLY)
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com 
 Newsgroups: sci.econ
 

Jim Blair writes that he believes the key to understanding whether or not "The
Economics of QWERTY" is fact or myth is an article by Edwin Lee, "Standards,
Innovation and Survival".

Sorry Jim, I've read the article and it is fatuous.  Consider the following
statements made by Lee:

"Successful companies, like Sony with its VHS video recording technology...."

Wrong.  Sony had Betamax.  Matsushita beat it out with VHS.
More from Lee:

"VHS won as the market standard because of the marketing skills of its
proponents; Betamax was technically superior (like Apple's PC) but it didn't
matter once the market standard was established."

Doubly wrong. VHS was the superior product (as judged by the consumer); it had
a longer recording time.  Twice as long.  RCA marketed VHS with the slogan;
"Four hours. $1,000. SelectaVision."  A rather important advantage for someone
wanting to record a 3 hour long football game.

Further, and crucial to the argument over "path dependence", Betamax got to the
market first and had a two year head start over VHS.  This refutes the theory
of "path dependence".  VHS displaced the standard established by Sony's
Betamax, because VHS was the better product.

 Again from Lee's article:

"The QWERTY typewriter keyboard happened to be on the first typewriter in which
the typist could see a character immediately after typing it.  That typewriter
was introduced in 1911 and, became wildly popular because of the visibility of
the typing. (My italics)

Another error, this machine was invented in the 1880's by Franz Xavier Wagner
and didn't make much headway in the marketplace.  Anyway this feature
(visibility of the typed line) isn't important to a touch typist!

Back to Edwin Lee:

"Other manufacturers were forced to adopt the QWERTY keyboard in order to have
a chance at selling to the majority of trained typists"

You've guessed it:  Not true.  The training of typists was done by the
sales-forces of the various typewriter manufacturers.  They even offered
placement services for typists they had already trained on their keyboards as
late as 1923.

Try, try again:

"In the 1930s, a man named Dvorak introduced a technically superior typewriter
keyboard. [It] enables one to type 20% faster, go for hours without fatigue and
learn typing in half the time."

This entitles Lee to a Golden Sombrero Award (five strikeouts in a row).  There
is no credible evidence for the above claims (and plenty of ergonomic studies
to refute them).  Such claims for the superiority of the Dvorak Simplified
Keyboard (DSK) rest on a study made for the U.S. Navy during World War II.  A
study conducted by none other than Lt. Commander August Dvorak(!) holder of the
patent for the DSK.  Dvorak actually claimed up to a 40% increase in typing
efficiency.

Now I ask the reader, is it believable that large companies such as IBM or
General Motors--companies that paid thousands of people to do nothing all day
but type--would not take an opportunity to increase its workforce's efficiency?
 Its been a long time since I filled out an employment application, but my
memory is that without fail there was a box where I was asked to enter my WPM.

There are other problems with Edwin Lee's article, but I've said enough.  My
humble opinion is that no serious person will be interested in work this
sloppy.

Patrick

Hi,

Thanks for the comments. I will add your letter to my QWERTY file next 
to the Lee article.  When I read it, I missed some the obvious errors of 
fact (Sony and Betamax for example).

But I think it clear that there is SOME advantage to being the first in 
a new market to establish the "market standard", and that having done so, 
some features that were not especially important will be carried along.
The question is just how important is this early lead?

I recall from the Beta-VHS war that the Beta people claimed it was 
"better" in picture quality, but the shorter play time proved to be a 
critical liability.  The two formats were not compatable, and when video 
stores became popular, clearly only one format would survive. (For a 
while in Madison, video stores carried movies on both).

But what if the Beta engineers had come up with the 3 speed (2-4-6
hour) recording times before VHS?

I remember when 8-track was making a play for the tape cassette market.
It seemed to me that 8 track had the edge for car sound systems, since
you did not have to flip the tape after it played half way: a serious
problem while driving.  But the 8 track did have a weak spot in the
place where the tape was spliced, and this caused a higher breaking
rate (especially in cold weather).

Then the auto-reverse cassette  player crushed the 8-track.

On the keyboard, I tried the Dvorak pattern. I suspect it has some
advantage for good typists, but for me, the best pattern would be
to put the keys in alphabetical order :-)  While a GOOD typist need
not see the letters as they are typed, this is clearly an advantage
to the beginner. Do you think that if Underwood and Remmingtion had
used the Dvorak keyboard, QWERTY would have later replaced it?

In summary, setting the market standard gives an important edge, but 
is not irreversible. 

And there are limits. Remember:

Q: "How many MICROSOFT workers does it take to change a light bulb"?

A: None. Bill Gates sets "darkness" as the industry standard.

This is a joke. (Isn't it? I mean he couldn't really do that? Even Bill Gates?)

(Could he?)

                     ,,,,,,,
_______________ooo___(_O O_)___ooo_______________
                       (_)
jim blair (jeblair@facstaff.wisc.edu) Madison Wisconsin
USA. This message was brought to you using biodegradable
     binary bits, and 100% recycled bandwidth.


Subject: Wall Street Journal and QWERTY 
       Date: 25 Feb 1998 16:00:18 GMT 
       From: susupply@aol.com (SUSUPPLY)
Organization: AOL http://www.aol.com 
 Newsgroups: sci.econ


Today's (Feb. 25, 98) Wall Street Journal, page B-1, contains a well written
piece on the QWERTY/Path Dependence debate.

There is not much new to anyone who has read what the "grinch" and I have
written on this newsgroup, except that it appears that Paul Krugman is
conceding he was wrong about what he wrote under "The Economics of QWERTY" in
"Peddling Prosperity".  He is quoted as follows in the article:

"'QWERTY is a great metaphor'  the MIT economist says.  But he concedes that
evidence of being locked into a bad technology 'turns out to be fairly weak'"

And later in the same article:

"...economists like Prof. Krugman are starting to sound like Profs. Liebowitz
and Margolis in defending the vigor of free markets.

"'Really large mistakes offer profit opportunities,'" Prof. Krugman says.  'If
there is a really crummy technology out there that we have locked into, then it
will be worth it for someone to pay the cost' involved in getting people to
switch."

Patrick