Unperfed film, 33x50 frame, and a friction driven length-counter advance (like used in many 120 cameras), plus a paper head and tail to simplify loading (or a cassette system like the one 35mm has now) could have been a nice improvement over 828 or 35mm -- but it would have had to start no later than 1930 to have a chance to beat out the cine double perf film selected by Barnack and Leitz and picked up on a competitive basis by Zeiss. As it is, we have only one non-perfed roll size still in common use (you can still buy 46mm film strips if you're a 127 addict, but it's hard to get spooled 127 film and it's expensive -- actually cheaper to cut down 120 and respool it).
A 33x50 frame could have easily competed against 127 half frame -- more compact camera, no harder to load (with a better spool design than 828, or a cassette system) -- and with the films of the day, would have been significantly superior to the 24x36 we have now. Mechanical counters for unperfed film, however, didn't come along for another seven or eight years (my Super Ikonta B is a 1938 design, despite having been built after the War) and the earliest of them were turns-counters, which are less consistent than length counters. That would have required backing paper and a ruby window on the hypothetical camera, making it similar to 828 (which Kodak made easier to use with auto-stop winding working from a single perf per frame), and thus hampered for professional use by roll length (16 is about the limit that will fit 828 spools and 12 was probably closer to the mark with 1930s films, assuming you keep the backing for the full length), the fiddly operation of loading the tiny spools, and needing the ruby window to see how much film you've used/have left. Our hypothetical "133" or "1650" film format would almost certainly have wound up as just another of the relatively obscure roll film formats that vanished over the past century.