An early and possibly inferior standard becomes entrenched because switching cost rises with adoption.
David's 1985 article became the canonical illustration of path dependence, but the empirical claim that QWERTY is an inferior standard locked in by historical accident is disputed. Switching costs and coordination effects are real mechanisms; QWERTY is not an uncontested proof of inefficient lock-in.
In practice
- A country's rail gauge, a keyboard layout and a date format all persist because switching costs rise with adoption.
- An organisation's file-naming convention is agreed badly in year one and is unchangeable by year five, though nobody defends it.
- Possible explanations
- The explanation is increasing returns to adoption: as users learn a standard, the cost of switching rises for everyone, so an early lead can become permanent regardless of merit.
- In its favour
- The mechanism is not in doubt and is well modelled, with clearer cases than the typewriter, including electrical standards and file formats.
- Against it
- The founding illustration is disputed: the evidence that QWERTY is meaningfully inferior to alternatives is weak, and critics argue that markets have in fact switched standards when the gain was large enough.
- Standing
- The mechanism is not in doubt; the claim that QWERTY is an inferior standard locked in by accident is disputed.
- Subject
- Design & Systems
- Essay
- Why systems behave against intuition