Editing Path dependence (section)

==Commercial examples==

===Videocassette recording systems===

The [[videotape format war]] is a key example of path dependence. Three mechanisms ''independent of product quality'' could explain how [[VHS]] [[format war#1970s|achieved dominance]] over [[Betamax]] from a negligible [[early adoption]] lead:
# A [[network effect]]: [[videocassette]] [[video rental shop|rental stores]] observed more VHS rentals and stocked up on VHS tapes, leading [[Renting#Rental agreements|renters]] to buy VHS players and rent more VHS tapes, until there was complete [[vendor lock-in]].
# A VCR manufacturer [[bandwagon effect]] of switching to VHS-production because they expected it to win the ''standards battle''.
# Sony, the original developer of Betamax, did not let [[pornography]] companies license their technology for mass production, which meant that nearly all pornographic motion pictures released on video used VHS format.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://knowledgenuts.com/2014/03/05/betamax-didnt-lose-to-vhs-because-of-adult-films/|title=Betamax Didn't Lose To VHS Because Of Adult Films|last=M.Admin|date=2014-03-05|website=KnowledgeNuts|language=en-US|access-date=2019-08-06}}</ref>

An alternative analysis is that VHS was [[Videotape format war#Market share|better-adapted to market demands]] (e.g. having a longer recording time). In this interpretation, path dependence had little to do with VHS's success, which would have occurred even if Betamax had established an early lead.<ref>{{cite book |last=Liebowitz |first=Stan |title=Re-thinking the Network Economy |year=2002 |page=[https://archive.org/details/rethinkingnetwor00lieb/page/41 41] |publisher=New York |url=https://archive.org/details/rethinkingnetwor00lieb/page/41 |isbn=978-0-8144-0649-6 |quote=It was the inferior playing time that led to the demise of the Betamax, not the fact that it was first or second or third. |url-access=registration }}</ref>
{{multiple image 
 | align         = right
 | direction     = vertical
 | image1        = KB USA-standard.svg
 | caption1      = QWERTY keyboard
 | image2        = KB USA Dvorak text.svg
 | caption2      = Dvorak keyboard
 | footer_align  = center
 | footer        = Keyboard layouts}}

===QWERTY keyboard===

The QWERTY keyboard is a prominent example of path dependence due to the widespread emergence and persistence of the QWERTY keyboard. QWERTY has persisted over time despite potentially more efficient keyboard arrangements being developed – [[Dvorak Simplified Keyboard#Comparison of the QWERTY and Dvorak layouts|QWERTY vs. Dvorak]] is an example of this.<ref name=":4" /> However as it is not clear whether other keyboard layouts really are better, there is still debate if this is a good example of path dependence.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Liebowitz |first1=S. J. |last2=Margolis |first2=Stephen E. |title=The Fable of the Keys |journal=The Journal of Law and Economics |date=April 1990 |volume=33 |issue=1 |pages=1–25 |doi=10.1086/467198|s2cid=14262869 }}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/1999/04/01/the-qwerty-myth|title = The QWERTY myth|newspaper = The Economist|date = April 1999}}</ref>

===Railway track gauges===

The standard [[Track gauge|gauge]] of railway tracks is another example of path dependence which explains how a seemingly insignificant event or circumstance can change the choice of technology over the long run despite contemporary know-how showing such a choice to be inefficient.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Puffert |first1=Douglas J. |title=Path Dependence in Spatial Networks: The Standardization of Railway Track Gauge |journal=Explorations in Economic History |date=1 July 2002 |volume=39 |issue=3 |pages=282–314 |doi=10.1006/exeh.2002.0786 |url=https://doi.org/10.1006/exeh.2002.0786 |language=en |issn=0014-4983}}</ref> 

More than half the world's railway gauges are {{convert|4|ft|8+1/2|in|cm}}, known as [[standard gauge]], despite the consensus among engineers being that wider gauges have increased performance{{huh|date=November 2020}} and speed. The path to the adoption of the standard gauge began in the late 1820s when George Stephenson, a British engineer, began work on the [[Liverpool and Manchester Railway]]. His experience with primitive coal tramways resulted in this gauge width being copied by the Liverpool and Manchester Railway, then the rest of Great Britain, and finally by railroads in Europe and North America.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Puffert |first1=Douglas J. |title=The Standardization of Track Gauge on North American Railways, 1830–1890 |journal=The Journal of Economic History |date=December 2000 |volume=60 |issue=4 |pages=933–960 |doi=10.1017/S0022050700026322 |s2cid=13721300 |url=(4), 933–960. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0022050700026322 |language=en |issn=0022-0507}}</ref> 

There are tradeoffs involved in the choice of rail gauge between the cost of constructing a line (which rises with wider gauges) and various performance metrics, including maximum speed, low [[center of gravity]] (desirable, especially in [[double-stack rail transport]]). While the attempts with [[Brunel gauge]], a significantly broader gauge failed, the widespread use of [[Iberian gauge]], [[Russian gauge]] and [[Indian gauge]], all of which are broader than Stephenson's choice, show that there is nothing inherent to the 1435 mm gauge that led to its global success.