tl;dr: it's a wordy but alright article about how the idea of an inferior product winning because it got a head start is a myth that has no actual evidence. QWERTY vs DVORAK is one example of this myth, but it's not central to the piece, actually.
Moreover, it seems to assume that being lucky is the same as being first. Providing examples of second-comers who were successful (VHS, DOS) is not a sufficient argument that luck doesn't matter in markets.
Most claims of "luck" don't hold up when examined closely.
There are rather few cases of some technology being superior in every conceivable way to its active competitor; usually, each has relative pros and cons. Beta wasn't superior in every way to VHS - at every point while they were still earnestly competing, VHS tapes had longer run times. Early Beta tapes only lasted one hour, not even letting you record an entire movie. (ETA: It was very popular to record on LP and SLP modes in VHS, further reducing quality to get extra recording time. Recording fidelity wasn't a winning factor.)
Almost as bad, Sony waited a long time to license the format, turning away interested manufacturers who then produced VHS machines.
End result? A (more) open format that was both more available and distinctly superior in an key aspect won out. Not exactly a roll of the dice.
At first, looking at the scrollbar I thought you may have been harsh in your judgement "It's not that long" I said. But then I realized how closely packed the paragraphs were, how many sentences each had, and just how small the font was, I thought, "He has a point."
Then when I scrolled to the end for the heck of it and I saw the "1 2 3 4" links, I swore I'd come back and upvote you :)
I always do... and if there are many comments then I'll open the link in another tab and flip between them. Seriously, the comments are why I check HN first and Techmeme/other news second.
I think in another post it turned out that majority of HNers here do the same.
