Technology monopolies do not exclude new technologies

This article is transferred from: Learning Times

There are still many people in academia today who believe that technology monopolies will rely on their "market dominance" to lock in existing technologies and hinder the entry of new technologies with higher efficiency into the market. In 1985, economist Paul David published a paper in the American Economic Review, using the "keyboard" as an example to argue the above point. His analysis logic is that technology monopolies are easy for users to form path dependence on "old technologies", thereby excluding the promotion of new technologies and leading to market failures. The example of a keyboard is this: in the 1870s, when the typewriter production process was not yet perfect, the word key bounce back slowly after hitting the key, and if the key was struck too fast, the word key would be twisted together and cause blockage. Later, an editor named Shoals designed a keyboard that would use the most frequently used "O", "S", "A" to hit the most clumsy ring finger or little finger, while the low-frequency "V", "J", "U" would be placed under the most flexible index finger. In this way, the typist's keystroke speed is reduced, so that the problem of twisting keys is solved. The "QWERTY" keyboard was a huge hit after entering the market and was quickly patented. However, in the 1930s, with the progress of the production process, the word key bounce back was greatly accelerated. Dvorak rearrange the letters and designed a new simple keyboard (Dsk) to improve typing speed, which patented it in 1936. But he did not expect that the new keyboard was not accepted by most people and could not be promoted in the market. The new keyboard is more efficient in typing, so why is it difficult to promote it in the market? According to David's analysis, there are two reasons: on the one hand, typists are accustomed to using old keyboards, unwilling to learn to use new keyboards, and the office is not equipped with new keyboard typewriters; on the other hand, offices do not configure new keyboard typewriters because they cannot find trained typists. In the final analysis, it is the market share of the old keyboard that is too high, and the old technology has formed a monopoly. However, some scholars disagree with David's explanation, arguing that the reason why the new keyboard is not widely adopted is that the new keyboard does not have an advantage over the old keyboard. For example, Bill Gates, the founder of "Microsoft", once retorted: "The letters on English typewriters and computer keyboards are arranged in QWERTY order, and there is no legal requirement to do so, but most users cling to this standard." It can only be said that such arrangements are more effective than others. In fact, David said that the new keyboard is better than the old keyboard, which is supported by experimental data. According to him, the U.S. Department of the Navy once conducted an experiment: typists can use the new keyboard, which can type 108 words per minute, while the old keyboard can only type 56 words per minute. He concluded: "If the old keyboard is likened to a cow, then the new keyboard is a jeep, and no matter how exciting the cow is, the speed cannot catch up with the jeep." It sounds like David's analysis is well-founded, but Strong, a professor at the University of Pennsylvania, questions it. The reason is that the Admiralty experiment was conducted under the direction of Dvořák, and he not only owned a patent for the new keyboard, but also received $130,000 from the Carnegie Board of Education. Later, Strong also organized experiments with groups of 10 people, and the results showed that one group using the new keyboard had no significant advantage in typing speed compared to the other group using the old keyboard. I don't know what the reader thinks. In my opinion, although Dvořák is the patent owner of the new keyboard, I don't think he will falsify the data; at the same time, I believe that Strong's experimental data is true. The results of the two experiments are different, and the reasons are not difficult to understand. The speed of typing depends not only on the typewriter, but also on the typist. You know, people's endowments in learning to type are different, if you let people with poor endowments use new keyboards, let people with high endowments use old keyboards, the advantages of new keyboards will naturally not appear. If you want to go deeper, the new keyboard can play English faster, this point has long been conclusive, there is no need to argue, and there is no need to do experiments. As mentioned earlier, Shoals designed the "QWERTY" keyboard to slow down the typist's keystroke speed, and it turns out that it can achieve this goal. Dvorak changed the alphabet of the old keyboard, placing the more frequently used letters under more flexible fingers, and typing was undoubtedly faster than the old keyboard. But nonetheless, I don't agree with David. New keyboards cannot be promoted, and it is not a technology monopoly that locks in old technology, because they cannot and cannot lock in old technology. The falsifiable example is: more than 30 years ago, the market share of "Big Brother" (analog mobile phone) was very high, but when the smartphone was launched, "Big Brother" was quickly replaced, and today it is no longer in the market. Why didn't the company that originally produced "Big Brother" lock in the old technology? It's not that they don't want to lock, it's that they can't. As for why the new keyboard cannot replace the old keyboard, I think it should be analyzed from the perspective of users and suppliers. From the user's point of view, since the advent of the computer in 1946, people have switched to computer typing, but the computer is not only used for typing, but also for engineering design, data processing, financial management and so on. For most users, typing is not the most important function; except for professional typists, the average user does not value typing speed. For example, I use a computer to write articles, the writing speed is not fast, never feel that I am slow to type, is slow to think. From the perspective of suppliers, computer manufacturers do not use new keyboards, although there are cost saving considerations, but mainly consider the versatility of keyboards. Yes, the new keyboard is faster to play English, but the speed of Chinese is not necessarily fast. The letters used in English with high frequency are not exactly the same as the letters used in Hanyu Pinyin, and the same is true in French, Russian, and Japanese. Computer manufacturers are certainly not required to switch to new keyboards to meet the needs of users around the world. It has been 37 years since David's article was published, and the academic community has been arguing about it. Some scholars have pointed out that "the new keyboard is better than the old keyboard" is just a myth that David made up for people. In my opinion, the new keyboard does have advantages in English typing, but it is obviously lacking in versatility. In other words, the real reason why computer manufacturers do not use new keyboards at present is not that they lock in old technology, but that new keyboards do not have enough marketing value. Pay attention to observation, not only the keyboard; enterprises as the main body of the market, to judge whether other technologies are advanced, will not only look at the new and old technology, but will focus on whether it has a higher marketing value. Constrained by the law of "survival of the fittest" competition, it is impossible for technology monopolies to refuse to use advanced technology. Instead, in order to gain a competitive advantage, they are constantly innovating technology. Therefore, the spearhead of anti-monopoly should not be directed at technology monopoly enterprises.