sign in sign up
<<
Home , QWERTY

Clio and the Economics of QWERTY Author(): Paul A. David Source: The American Economic Review , May, 1985, Vol. 75, No. 2, Papers and Proceedings of the Ninety-Seventh Annual Meeting of the American Economic Association (May, 1985), pp. 332-337 Published by: American Economic Association Stable URL: https://www.jstor.org/stable/1805621

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact [email protected].

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at https://about.jstor.org/terms

is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to The American Economic Review

This content downloaded from 195.113.56.251 on Wed, 23 Sep 2020 20:55:02 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Clio and the Economics of QWERTY

By PAUL A. DAVID*

Cicero demands of historians, first, that we I. The Story of QWERTY tell true stories. I intend fully to perform my duty on this occasion, by giving you a homely Why does the topmost row of letters piece of narrative economic history in which on your personal computer keyboard spell "one damn thing follows another." The main out QWERTYUIOP, rather than something point of the story will become plain enough: else? We know that nothing in the engineer- it is sometimes not possible to uncover the ing of computer terminals requires the awk- logic (or illogic) of the world around us ward known today as except by understanding how it got that way. "QWERTY," and we all are old enough to A path-dependent sequence of economic remember that QWERTY somehow has been changes is one of which important influences handed down to us from the Age of Type- upon the eventual outcome can be exerted by writers. Clearly nobody has been persuaded temporally remote events, including happen- by the exhortations to discard QWERTY, ings dominated by chance elements rather which apostles of DSK (the Dvorak Sim- than systematic forces. Stochastic processes plified Keyboard) were issuing in trade pub- like that do not converge automatically to a lications such as Computers and Automation fixed-point distribution of outcomes, and are during the early 1970's. Why not? Devotees called non-ergodic. In such circumstances of the keyboard arrangement patented in ""historical accidents" can neither be ignored, 1932 by August Dvorak and . . Dealey nor neatly quarantined for the purpose of have long held most of the world's records economic analysis; the dynamic process itself for speed . Moreover, during the 1940's takes on an essentially historical character. U.S. Navy experiments had shown that the Standing alone, my story will be simply il- increased efficiency obtained with DSK lustrative and does not establish how much would amortize the cost of retraining a group of the world works this way. That is an open of typists within the first ten days of their empirical issue and I would be presumptuous subsequent full-time employment. Dvorak's to claim to have settled it, or to instruct you death in 1975 released him from forty years in what to do about it. Let us just hope the of frustration with the world's stubborn re- tale proves mildly diverting for those wait- jection of his contribution; it came too soon ing to be told if and why the study of eco- for him to be solaced by the Apple IIC nomic history is a necessity in the making of computer's built-in switch, which instantly economists. converts its keyboard from QWERTY to virtual DSK, or to be further aggravated by doubts that the switch would not often be flicked. *Department of Economics, Encina Hall, Stanford University, Stanford, CA 94305. Support provided for If as Apple advertising copy now says, this research, under a grant to the Technological In- DSK "lets you type 20-40% faster," why did novation Program of the Center for Economic Policy this superior design meet essentially the same Research, Stanford University, is gratefully acknowl- rejection as the previous seven improvements edged. Douglas Puffert supplied able research assistance. on the QWERTY keyboard that Some, but not the whole, of my indebtedness to Brian Arthur's views on QWERTY and QWERTY-like sub- were patented in the and Brit- jects is recorded in the References. I bear full responsi- ain during the years 1909-24? Was it the bility for errors of fact and interpretation, as well as for result of customary, nonrational behavior by the peculiar opinions abbreviated herein. A fuller ver- countless individuals socialized to carry on sion with complete references, entitled "Understanding the Economics of QWERTY or Is History Necessary?," an antiquated technological tradition? Or, as is available on request. Dvorak himself once suggested, had there

332

This content downloaded from 195.113.56.251 on Wed, 23 Sep 2020 20:55:02 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms VOL. 75 NO. 2 ECONOMIC HISTORY 333 been a conspiracy among the members of the succession was a particularly serious defect. typewriter oligopoly to suppress an invention When a typebar stuck at or near the print- which they feared would so increase type- ing point, every succeeding stroke merely writer efficiency as ultimately to curtail the hammered the same impression onto the demand for their products? Or perhaps we paper, resulting in a string of repeated letters should turn instead to the other popular that would be discovered only when the typist "Devil Theory," and ask if political regu- bothered to raise the carriage to inspect what lation and interference with the workings of had been printed. a "free market" has been the cause of ineffi- Urged onward by the bullying optimism of cient keyboard regimentation? Maybe it's all , the promoter-venture capi- to be blamed on the public school system, talist whom he had taken into the partner- like everything else that's awry? ship in 1867, Sholes struggled for the next six You can already sense that these will not years to perfect "the machine." From the be the most promising lines along which to inventor's trial-and-error rearrangements of search for an economic understanding of the original model's alphabetical key order- QWERTY's present dominance. The agents ing, in an effort to reduce the frequency of engaged in production and purchase deci- typebar clashes, there emerged a four-row, sions in today's keyboard market are not the upper case keyboard approaching the mod- prisoners of custom, conspiracy, or state con- ern QWERTY standard. In March 1873, trol. But while they are, as we now say, Densmore succeeded in placing the manufac- perfectly "free to choose," their behavior, turing rights for the substantially trans- nevertheless, is held fast in the grip of events formed Sholes-Glidden "Type Writer" with long forgotten and shaped by circumstances . Remington and Sons, the famous arms in which neither they nor their interests makers. Within the next few months figured. Like the great men of whom Tolstoy QWERTY's evolution was virtually com- wrote in War and Peace, "(e) very action of pleted by Remington's mechanics. Their theirs, that seems to them an act of their own many modifications included some fine- free will, is in an historical sense not free at tuning of the keyboard design in the course all, but in bondage to the whole course of of which the "" wound up in the place previous history..." (Bk. IX, . 1). previously allotted to the period mark "." This is a short story, however. So it begins Thus were assembled into one row all the only little more than a century ago, with the letters which a salesman would need to im- fifty-second man to invent the typewriter. press customers, by rapidly pecking out the Christopher Latham Sholes was a Milwau- brand name: TYPE WRITER kee, Wisconsin printer by trade, and a me- Despite this sales gimmick, the early com- chanical tinkerer by inclination. Helped by mercial fortunes of the machine, with which his friends, and Samuel W. chance had linked QWERTY's destiny re- Soule, he had built a primitive writing ma- mained terrifyingly precarious. The eco- chine for which a patent application was nomic downturn of the 1870's was not the filed in October 1867. Many defects in the best of times in which to launch a novel working of Sholes' "Type Writer" stood in piece of office equipment costing $125, and the way of its immediate commercial intro- by 1878, when Remington brought out its duction. Because the printing point was Improved Model Two (equipped with car- located underneath the paper carriage, it was riage ), the whole enterprise was quite invisible to the operator. "Non-visibil- teetering on the edge of bankruptcy. Conse- ity" remained an unfortunate feature of this quently, even though sales began to pick up and other up-stroke machines long after the pace with the lifting of the depression and flat paper carriage of the original design had annual typewriter production climbed to been supplanted by arrangements closely re- 1200 units in 1881, the market position which sembling the modern continuous roller- QWERTY had acquired during the course platen. Consequently, the tendency of the of its early career was far from deeply typebars to clash and jam if struck in rapid entrenched; the entire stock of QWERTY-

This content downloaded from 195.113.56.251 on Wed, 23 Sep 2020 20:55:02 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 334 AEA PAPERS AND PROCEEDINGS MAY1985 embodying machines in the United States II. Basic QWERTY-Nomics could not have much exceeded 5000 when the decade of the 1880's opened. To understand what had happened in the Nor was its future much protected by any fateful interval of the 1890's, the economist compelling technological necessities. For, must attend to the fact that were there were ways to make a typewriter without beginning to take their place as an element the up-stroke typebar mechanism that had of a larger, rather complex system of produc- called forth the QWERTY adaptation, and tion that was technically interrelated. In ad- rival designs were appearing on the Amer- dition to the manufacturers and buyers of ican scene. Not only were there typebar typewriting machines, this system involved machines with "down-stroke" and "front- typewriter operators and the variety of stroke" actions that afforded a visible print- organizations (both private and public) that ing point; the problem of typebar clashes undertook to train people in such skills. Still could be circumvented by dispensing with more critical to the outcome was the fact typebars entirely, as young Thomas Edison that, in contrast to the hardware subsystems had done in his 1872 patent for an electric of which QWERTY or other keyboards were print-wheel device which later became the a part, the larger system of production was basis for teletype machines. Lucien Stephen nobody's design. Rather like the proverbial Crandall, the inventor of the second type- Topsy, and much else in the history of econ- writer to reach the American market (in 1879) omies besides, it "jes' growed." arranged the type on a cylindrical sleeve: the The advent of "touch" typing, a distinct sleeve was made to revolve to the required advance over the four-finger hunt-and-peck letter and come down onto the printing-point, method, came late in the 1880's and was locking in place for correct alignment. (So critical, because this innovation was from much for the "revolutionary" character of its inception adapted to the Remington's the IBM 72/82's "golf ball" design.) Freed QWERTY keyboard. gave rise from the legacy of typebars, commercially to three features of the evolving production successful typewriters such as the Hammond system which were crucially important in and the Blickensderfer first sported a key- causing QWERTY to become "locked in" as board arrangement which was more sensible the dominant keyboard arrangement. These than QWERTY. Then so-called "Ideal" key- features were technical interrelatedness, econ- board placed the sequence DHIATENSOR omies of scale, and quasi-irreversibility of in the home row, these being ten letters with investment. They constitute the basic in- which one may compose over 70 percent of gredients of what might be called QWERTY- the words in the . nomics. The typewriter boom beginning in the Technical interrelatedness, or the need 1880's thus witnessed a rapid proliferation of for system compatibility between keyboard competitive designs, manufacturing compa- "hardware" and the "software" represented nies, and keyboard arrangements rivalling by the touch typist's memory of a particular the Sholes-Remington QWERTY. Yet, by arrangement of the keys, meant that the ex- the middle of the next decade, just when it pected present value of a typewriter as an had become evident that any micro-techno- instrument of production was dependent logical rationale for QWERTY's dominance upon the availability of compatible software was being removed by the progress of type- created by typists' decisions as to the kind of writer engineering, the U.S. industry was keyboard they should learn. Prior to the rapidly moving towards the standard of an growth of the personal market for type- upright front-stroke machine with a four-row writers, the purchasers of the hardware typi- QWERTY keyboard that was referred to as cally were business firms and therefore dis- "the Universal." During the period 1895- tinct from the owners of typing skills. Few 1905, the main producers of non-typebar incentives existed at the time, or later, for machines fell into line by offering "the Uni- any one business to invest in providing its versal" as an option in place of the Ideal employees with a form of general human keyboard. capital which so readily could be taken

This content downloaded from 195.113.56.251 on Wed, 23 Sep 2020 20:55:02 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms VOL. 75 NO. 2 ECONOMIC HISTORY 335 elsewhere. (Notice that it was the wartime in a second ball of the same color being U.S. Navy, not your typical employer, that returned to the urn; the probabilities that undertook the experiment of retraining typ- balls of specified colors will be added are ists on the Dvorak keyboard.) Nevertheless therefore increasing (linear) functions of the the purchase by a potential employer of a proportions in which the respective colors QWERTY keyboard conveyed a positive are represented within the urn. A recent the- pecuniary externality to compatibly trained orem due to W. Brian Arthur et al. (1983; touch typists. To the degree to which this 1985) allows us to say that when a gener- increased the likelihood that subsequent alized form of such a process (characterized typists would choose to learn QWERTY, in by unbounded increasing returns) is ex- preference to another method for which the tended indefinitely, the proportional share of stock of compatible hardware would not be one of the colors will, with probability one, so large, the overall user costs of a typewrit- converge to unity. ing system based upon QWERTY (or any There may be many eligible candidates for specific keyboard) would tend to decrease as supremacy, and from an ex ante vantage it gained in acceptance relative to other sys- point we cannot say with corresponding cer- tems. Essentially symmetrical conditions ob- tainty which among the contending colors tained in the market for instruction in touch -or rival keyboard arrangements-will be typing. the one to gain eventual dominance. That These decreasing cost conditions-or sys- part of the story is likely to be governed by tem scale -had a number of con- "historical accidents," which is to say, by the sequences, among which undoubtedly the particular sequencing of choices made close most important was the tendency for the to the beginning of the process. It is there process of intersystem competition to lead that essentially random, transient factors are towards de facto standardization through the most likely to exert great leverage, as has predominance of a single keyboard design. been shown neatly by Arthur's (1983) model For analytical purposes, the matter can be of the dynamics of technological competition simplified in the following way: suppose that under increasing returns. Intuition suggests buyers of typewriters uniformly were without that if choices were made in a forward-look- inherent preferences concerning keyboards, ing way, rather than myopically on the basis and cared only about how the stock of touch of comparisons among the currently prevail- typists was distributed among alternative ing costs of different systems, the final out- specific keyboard styles. Suppose typists, on come could be influenced strongly by expec- the other hand, were heterogeneous in their tations. A particular system could triumph preferences for learning QWERTY-based over rivals merely because the purchasers of "touch," as opposed to other methods, but the software (and/or the hardware) expected attentive also to the way the stock of ma- that it would do so. This intuition seems to chines was distributed according to keyboard be supported by recent formal analyses by styles. Then imagine the members of this het- Michael Katz and Carl Shapiro (1983), and erogenous population deciding in random or- Ward Hanson (1984), of markets where der what kind of typing training to acquire. purchasers of rival products benefit from ex- It may be seen that, with unbounded de- ternalities conditional upon the size of the creasing costs of selection, each stochastic compatible system or "network" with which decision in favor of QWERTY would raise they thereby become joined. Although the the probability (but not guarantee) that the initial lead acquired by QWERTY through next selector would favor QWERTY. From its association with the Remington was the viewpoint of the formal theory of sto- quantitatively very slender, when magnified chastic processes, what we are looking at by expectations it may well have been quite now is equivalent to a generalized "Polya sufficient to guarantee that the industry even- urn scheme." In a simple scheme of that tually would lock in to a de facto QWERTY kind, an urn containing balls of various col- standard. ors is sampled with replacement, and every The occurrence of this "lock in" as early drawing of a ball of a specified color results as the mid-1890's does appear to have owed

This content downloaded from 195.113.56.251 on Wed, 23 Sep 2020 20:55:02 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms 336 AEA PAPERS AND PROCEEDINGS MA 1985

something also to the high costs of software (1915), on the problem of Britain's under- "conversion" and the resulting quasi-irre- sized railway wagons and "the penalties of versibility of investments in specific touch- taking the lead" (see pp. 126-27); they may typing skills. Thus, as far as keyboard con- be painfully familiar to students who have version costs were concerned, an important been obliged to assimilate the details of de- asymmetry had appeared between the soft- servedly less-renowned scribblings (see my ware and the hardware components of the 1971, 1975 studies) about the obstacles which evolving system: the costs of typewriter ridge-and-furrow placed in the path of British software conversion were going up, whereas farm mechanization, and the influence of the costs of typewriter hardware conversion remote events in nineteenth-century U.S. fac- were coming down. While the novel, non- tor price history upon the subsequently typebar technologies developed during the emerging bias towards Hicks' labor-saving 1880's were freeing the keyboard from tech- improvements in the production technology nical bondage to QWERTY, typewriter of certain branches of manufacturing. makers were by the same token freed from I believe there are many more QWERTY fixed-cost bondage to any particular key- worlds lying out there in the past, on the board arrangement. Non-QWERTY type- very edges of the modern economic analyst's writer manufacturers seeking to expand tidy universe; worlds we do not yet fully market share could cheaply switch to achieve perceive or understand, but whose influence, compatibility with the already existing stock like that of dark stars, extends nonetheless to of QWERTY-programmed typists, who could shape the visible orbits of our contemporary not. This, then, was a situation in which the economic affairs. Most of the time I feel sure precise details of timing in the developmen- that the absorbing delights and quiet terrors tal sequence had made it privately profitable of exploring QWERTY worlds will suffice to in the short run to adapt machines to the draw adventurous economists into the sys- habits of men (or to women, as was increas- tematic study of essentially historical dy- ingly the case) rather than the other way namic processes, and so will seduce them around. And things have been that way ever into the ways of economic history, and a since. better grasp of their subject.

III. Message REFERENCES

In place of a moral, I want to leave you Arthur, W. Brian, " On Competing Technol- with a message of faith and qualified hope. ogies and Historical Small Events: The The story of QWERTY is a rather intriguing Dynamics of Choice Under Increasing Re- one for economists. Despite the presence of turns," Technological Innovation Program the sort of externalities that standard static Workshop Paper, Department of Econom- analysis tells us would interfere with the ics, Stanford University, November 1983. achievement of the socially optimal degree of Arthur, W. Brian, Ermoliev, Yuri . and Kaniov- system compatibility, competition in the ab- ski, Yuri M., " On Generalized Urn Schemes sence of perfect futures markets drove the of the Polya Kind," Kibernetika, No. 1, industry prematurely into standardization on 1983, 19, 49-56 (translated from the Rus- the wrong system -where decentralized deci- sian in Cybernetics, 1983, 19, 61-71). sion making subsequently has sufficed to hold I , and _ , "Strong Laws it. Outcomes of this kind are not so exotic. for a Class of Path-Dependent Urn Pro- For such things to happen seems only too cesses," in Proceedings of the International possible in the presence of strong' technical Conference on Stochastic Optimization, interrelatedness, scale economies, and irre- Kiev, Munich: Springer-Verlag, 1985. versibilities due to learning and habituation. David, Paul A., "The Landscape and the Ma- They come as no surprise to readers pre- chine: Technical Interrelatedness, Land pared by Thorstein Veblen's classic passages Tenure and the Mechanization of the Corn in Germany and the Industrial Revolution Harvest in Victorian Britain," in . .

This content downloaded from 195.113.56.251 on Wed, 23 Sep 2020 20:55:02 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms VOL. 75 NO. 2 ECONOMIC HISTORY 337

McCloskey, ed., Essays on a Mature Econ- Costs," Technological Innovation Program omy. Britain after 1840, London: Methuen, Workshop Paper, Department of Econom- 1971, ch. 5. ics, Stanford University, January, 1984. , Technical Choice, Innovation and Katz, Michael L. and Shapiro, Carl, "Network Economic Growth: Essays on American and Externalities, Competition, and Compati- British Experience in the Nineteenth Cen- bility," Woodrow Wilson School Discus- tury, New York: Cambridge University sion Paper in Economics No. 54, Prince- Press, 1975. ton University, September, 1983. Hanson, Ward A., "Bandwagons and Orphans: Veblen, Thorstein, Imperial Germany and the Dynamic Pricing of Competing Techno- Industrial Revolution, New York: MacMil- logical Systems Subject to Decreasing lan, 1915.

This content downloaded from 195.113.56.251 on Wed, 23 Sep 2020 20:55:02 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms