Loading...
In 1964, Xerox released the Long Distance Xerography (LDX) system — essentially the first commercial fax machine. It cost $46,000, weighed hundreds of pounds, and had exactly zero other machines to talk to. For over a decade, fax adoption crawled. By 1970, fewer than 50,000 fax machines existed worldwide. Each one could only connect to the handful of others already installed, making the value proposition weak. Why spend thousands on a machine when you could only reach a few dozen offices? Then something shifted. Japanese manufacturers like Sharp and Matsushita slashed prices below $1,000 in the early 1980s. By 1983, roughly 300,000 fax machines were operating in the US. The math was changing: 300,000 machines meant 90 billion possible connections (n² / 2). A new buyer wasn't just gettin...
Popular framing: Fax took off because Japanese manufacturers made it affordable, and once enough people had one, everyone needed one — a straightforward story of price, then popularity.
Structural analysis: The fax case reveals how value functions that scale superlinearly (n²) create systems with two stable states separated by an unstable threshold. Below the threshold, the system is trapped in low-adoption equilibrium regardless of product quality; above it, adoption becomes self-reinforcing through multiple coupled feedback loops — economic (each machine raises ROI for new buyers), social (non-adoption becomes stigmatized), and competitive (industry standards lock in the dominant technology). Price reduction mattered only insofar as it pushed installed base across the unstable threshold. The 'Lindy Effect' of the fax machine—how it survived decades of 'better' digital tech (email) because its legal and cultural status was already deeply entrenched.
Conflating 'price caused adoption' with 'price enabled crossing the tipping point' leads to systematically wrong predictions: it implies that making a product cheap enough will always drive adoption, when the actual requirement is achieving critical network density. This gap causes investors and policymakers to underfund network-building subsidies for nascent two-sided markets and overfund product-cost reductions in markets that are actually stuck in coordination traps.
