|
Subscribe RSS 2.0 feed |
Subscribe Atom feed If you wish to receive email notification, please here » |
« Connecting People | Main | Are we witnessing convergence? Well, sort of. »
In one corner, we have today's Nokia press release Nokia: "Convergence" on the future of mobility.
"Convergence" isn't just about technologies coming together. It's about a rapidly-consolidating playing field where companies "converge"
In the other corner, we have Michael Mace's blog post Can we please stop talking about convergence?
Markets aren't converging, they're diverging. ... "Convergence" is definitely not the right word for what's happening to markets.Are the industries converging? ... What's actually happening is more like they way they make steel: coal, lime, iron ore, and oxygen get fed into a blast furnace and utterly consumed by unearthly fire.
Choose your side:
Comments
Asking this question is like asking someone what they think about dogs.
When you say the word "dog" a Doberman is going to pop up in my mind. I own one.
It might mean "pink poodle" to Darla Mack.
It might mean "Huskie" to my father.
Point I'm trying to make is: what exactly do you mean by convergence?
Posted by: Stefan Constantinescu | March 27, 2007 06:59 PMindustries teach customers to demand convergent features - like cameraphones, musicphones, emailphones so on
Posted by: panariga | March 27, 2007 07:14 PMMarkets are converging and this convergence driven not by customers, but by major players on market.
If you believe The Economist, the future of mobile devices leads to divergence, not convergence, following the model of the auto industry: "the quest for the perfect handset that does everything is silly, since different types of users have different requirements. That suggests that handsets will become more diverse, rather than more uniform, in future: divergence, not convergence. At the same time, expect to see more people switching between different phones depending on the situation. For clues to the future of the phone, look in your driveway."
Posted by: Oren Levine | March 27, 2007 08:43 PMhttp://www.economist.com/opinion/PrinterFriendly.cfm?story_id=8353309
Oren: it sounds like that Economist article could have been orignally influenced by Michael Mace himself:
http://mobileopportunity.blogspot.com/2006/12/phones-cars.html
Stefan: I admit that my question was a stupid one. I just wanted to provoke some debate, because some people take terms "convergence", "converging markets", and "converging digital industries" for granted, and way too seriously.
Posted by: Tommi Vilkamo | March 27, 2007 09:13 PMThe car analogy isn't a good one because cars aren't with you the whole day. The reason convergence is so tempting on a phone is because a lot of people have their phone with them on their bedside table at night and in their pocket during the day. There's no other technology which has ever spent so much time with us, phone are completely unique in the way they've become so entwined with our everyday life.
If you want an alternative to convergence though, here's my own take, semi-convergence:
http://www.allaboutsymbian.com/features/item/Semi-Convergence_Can_you_have_your_cake_and_eat_it_with_the_Nokia_N800.php
...but at the end of the day convergence is probably going to end up being just too darn easy to add without pushing up production costs. Even the cheapest phone models, the $40 ones, have an incredible amount of convergence with calls, texts, fax compatibility, email compatibility, rudimentary web browsing, FM radios etc. They're not there because people particularly want extra features, it's just so cheap to include them that the manufacturers don't bother removing them.
People won't necessarily use all these converged features in the future, but they're already there in almost all phone models and the number of converged features is only going to go up.
Posted by: krisse | March 27, 2007 11:22 PM