Big Bang of Convergence 430
joNDoty writes "Businessweek is running a story predicting 'This is going to be the most disruptive period in the past 50 years." The period they are talking about is the digital age of convergence, where every software/hardware manufacturer is racing to link cell phones, tvs and computers into universal devices 'that can't be categorized as tech or consumer electronics.' 'The result is a Big Bang of convergence, and it's likely to produce the biggest explosion of innovation since the dawn of the Internet.' Overrated? Perhaps, but +1 insightful nonetheless." Sure, your fridge will tell you you need milk, but convergence is not necessarily a good thing.
Inevitable outcome... (Score:3, Insightful)
My thoughts. (Score:4, Insightful)
There's always the next big thing (Score:4, Insightful)
bah (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe it's like the metric system, and soccer in America*. It's the wave of the future, and always will be.
* maybe not. US Soccer is #8 in the world now, ahead of Germany!
all for convergence (Score:5, Insightful)
e.
Call me old fashioned if you want, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
We just put a replacement radio in my wife's car, a '93, and instead of knobs and a few large buttons there are these tiny little buttons that I can't read the labels for without a magnifying glass. WTF is that? Certainly, it's far from user friendly. So instead of just reaching over to change the station, or even to turn the danged thing off, by simply turning a reasonable size knob, I have to keep punching tiny buttons until it does what I want. Yeah, I eventually am learning which is which, but that's not my point. And you think talking on a cell phone is distracting... HA!
IMHO too much convergence is likely to be too much of a possible good thing.
Make a product that does its intended main function and does it well.
If I want the best knife or the best scissors, I don't get a Swiss Army knife.
"Do the Right Thing. It will gratify some people and astound the rest." - Mark Twain
Universal Cell phone/TV/Computer? (Score:2, Insightful)
i believe it (Score:2, Insightful)
this won't go corporate, because enough people at major companies will realize the whole single point of failure thing, and that they'll lose a lot of money waiting for workers' supermegagadget to come back from the shop, but i definitely think there's a market for small devices that do everything.
Bang! 20 dollars, please. (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Look at Your Remote Controls (Score:4, Insightful)
Which leads me to my main point - convergence of devices that I use on a regular basis will be a bad idea.
I want a small phone (I keep it with me everywhere). I want a big computer screen and a keyboard that's big enough to type fast on. I want a PDA that can integrate with my other computers, but allows me to use the stylus. I want a digital camera that I can take decent photos with for prints or posting on the web.
Am I asking too much? Look at all the products out there designed to address exactly what I listed above, and not only are they way more expensive than I would ever pay.... but they fail to do any of the things I described, at least to the extent that I want them there.
Simplicity = usability
Sorry, but I say overrated. (Score:3, Insightful)
For example, I prefer using a desktop for real work like long sessions of typing or video editing. The larger screen real estate, better price and more power mean that I'm better off with a desktop; and I think most people feel that way. Likewise, I don't want to use that monitor as a TV because it's too small; the hard drive in that computer is too small to store uncompressed DVDs, which are better left on desk to be played in the large-screen TV upstairs. I want a portable device to play music, and the key factor for that device is size, followed closely by battery life and ease-of-use -- and such a device, so useful for music, would be worthless for movies.
My point is that convergence isn't here today, and I doubt it will be in the near future. The hurdles may eventually be overcome, but I suspect convergence might be like flying cars or cheap, easy nuclear power: perpetually five or ten years down the line.
Yes, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
Beowulf cluser of playback devices? (Score:3, Insightful)
Thanks but no thanks.
Re:My thoughts. (Score:5, Insightful)
Hard to imagine a more general purpose tool than a PC.
Having one home display device makes sense. (Score:5, Insightful)
It saves complication and cost. It's just good engineering to simplify the system by reducing redundency to the optimum (not necessarily the minimum).
Having your toaster call up a website to find out how far up it should turn the rheostat, phone your mom to let her know you're actually eating a good breakfast, tell you the next chess move in that game with your buddy and then starting your car does not reduce complication and cost.
It is a poor solution.
There's nothing wrong with convergence, so long as the convergence makes inherent sense.
KFG
Re:Call me old fashioned if you want, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
There are well designed multi-function devices and poorly designed multi-function devices. That doesn't mean the entire concept is silly. (Or smart.)
Apple (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:My thoughts. (Score:3, Insightful)
Likewise, I used to carry a PDA. Kept me organized. Phone numbers? Now those are in my cell phone. Schedule? In my phone. Alarm clock while traveling? Yep, phone.
It isn't as convenient a timepiece as a watch, doesn't store addresses as well as my PDA, has much more limited calendar functions, and isn't as good as a bedside alarm, but I only have to carry ONE item to replace all those others... so I do.
Downside of convergence (Score:3, Insightful)
Another problem is that a converged product may make you sacrifice performance in one area for performance in another. For example (made up, of course) a monitor/television/CD/DVD player combination might have the best visual clarity, but be so-so at reading DVDs and skip a lot -- while a competing product might play DVDs flawlessly, but max out at 800x680 resolution. The more converged products become, the less choice we consumers have to maximize the quality and/or minimize our cost.
Re:Too 'low-tech' (Score:5, Insightful)
And that's hard. It's a lot harder than creating a new buzzword. It's even harder than building a product that connects to other products.
Convergence? (Score:3, Insightful)
How converging something useful?
I don't need a pinhole camera that makes crappy sounding phone calls and plays mp3's.
If it's the age of convergence ... (Score:3, Insightful)
... then shouldn't it be a "Big Crunch" [wikipedia.org] instead of a "Big Bang"?
I'm about as enthusiastic about merging my cellphone and refrigerator with my PDA and electric blanket as I am about living through the Big Crunch, so maybe it's an appropriate name, too...
Re:Look at Your Remote Controls (Score:3, Insightful)
That's a good example of how the hype over convergence is jumping the gun. We can't even solve the remote control problem. Everyone has a solution, but each solution brings with it more problems.
Over the next few years, companies will brag about convergence for stockholder support. But under the covers they will just be cramming two unrelated products into the same plastic shell, or allowing two very specific devices to talk to each other about very specific things. It really isn't any different than the over-hyped race to release the PDA, digital audio, the tablet PC, or any other new technology. We have years (if not decades) of hype to wade through before this one pans out.
Actually...Convergence happened ALREADY (Score:5, Insightful)
You name it, various kinds of convergence is happening today, all over the place. Who knows what's gonna happen next.
Re:So Sorry- I've only got one. (Score:5, Insightful)
This is not the whole story.
I, too, have this remote control and, while it does an adequate job of controlling everything, it does not provide for a "wife proof" interface. To be fair, I should replace "wife proof" with "non-techie proof" or something like that - but I won't.
For example, if I want to watch a DVD, then I have to press:
- TV, power (TV powers on)
- DVD, power (DVD powers on)
- AMP, 8 (which flips the receiver to the DVD input)
But WAIT! The instructions are different if the TV is already on. The complexity is MIND boggling. I will give ALL OF MY MONEY to someone who can fix the problem. And before everyone suggests CURRENT PRODUCTS, don't - because I've tried them all.
The one impediment to this is... (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Deja Vu? (Score:2, Insightful)
Talking about all this great up-and-coming technology that was supposedly going to be in every home by 2002 is actually making me kind of nostalgic. Somehow I think that the nostalgia would be stronger if we were at the point of remembering the technology, rather then dreaming of it.
Cest la vie.
Re:Look at Your Remote Controls (Score:3, Insightful)
What they don't mention is that some kind of serious standards are going to have to be put in place for this convergence to get off the ground. I'm tired of seeing multiple Cell Towers next to each other because the damn companies can't agree on a standard.
Re:Yes, but... (Score:5, Insightful)
Not to be insensitive, but your grandmother is going to die. Meanwhile the children being born today are growing up with the technology and will have no trouble using it. At two years old (he's four now), my son could put the tape in the VCR (even looks to make sure there's not one in already and ejects it if there is), switch the TV to Video, press play, and fast forward through the previews with no help from me. He's already proficient on a PC, even understands the difference between single and double-click and knows to wait when the hourglass comes up. Again, no offense, but my son could probably kick your grandmother's ass on a computer. Your grandmother is not the market for these devices. My son is.
The Ironing is Delicous (Score:3, Insightful)
The result is a Big Bang of convergence...
Does anyone else find this statement just a wee bit contradictory? Isn't the "Big Bang" metaphor traditionally reserved for describing phenomena of divergence? Maybe it would be more appropriate to call it a "Big Crunch [wikipedia.org] of convergence".
Just a thought...
Re:Call me old fashioned if you want, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
Just like the TV/VCR Combo (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Actually...Convergence happened ALREADY (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:So Sorry- I've only got one. (Score:3, Insightful)
(I use my AV receiver to do all my audio and video switching. It sounds like you do the same.)
Set up the little #1 button on the top as my 'power all components on' button. Then I learn my AV receiver's 'switch to DVD' buttons to the VL900's 'display' button on the DVD component. (repeat this step for each component, Cable, VCR, CD, etc.) When the wife wants to watch the DVD, just hit the big DVD button on the top and then click 'display' to make it 'come on the TV'. Want to switch back to the Cable, click the 'TV/Sat' button then click the 'display' button again and your back on cable.
It's not perfect and it requires all the components to be on, but it works for me.
Re:bah (Score:3, Insightful)
Even when we don't care about something (like soccer) we're still pretty damn good at it.
That has a lot to do with firstly sheer size (300,000,000 people, about the third most populous country in the world, with more than three times the population of e.g. Germany) and secondly, plenty of resources (e.g. widespread access to equipment and facilities - virtually anyone interested in a sport will with a little effort be able to find somewhere to play, equipment to play with, people to practice against, and often even sponsors to pay for the time). Also due to the US's general high average wealth and low unemployment (yes the US has very low unemployment compared to most countries), many people often do not need to be economically active to have their basic needs taken care of, e.g. often a spouse can take care of that while they stay home - so you have more free time on your hands, on average, which gives you time to pursue endeavours like sport. In fact, just by resources and size of population, you should really be number 1 at soccer too (but I guess if you don't count the obese people, who won't be good at sport, you're probably back at around the same population as Germany!). BTW I'm not aware that anyone elsewhere in the world is "pissed off" that the US is good at things like soccer.
Re:all for convergence (Score:3, Insightful)
Now a computer is a "media theft acceleration device", primarily useful (as far as the big boys are concerned) to "steal" "their" "product". I do not want what they have, so I am not stealing it. Their claim to it hangs on a slim thread of a business process so it's not really "theirs", and most of it isn't much of a product.
Re:Downside of convergence (Score:3, Insightful)
Oh no they haven't forgotten. But if they give you one device that works perfectly well for the one need you have, they can't sell you another one a year from now.
Convergence is Certainly Disruptive (Score:2, Insightful)
My next cell phone will be a phone, period, not some toy that's everything but a Veg-O-Matic. You can keep the rest of that...convergence.
Convergence is about negating the customer? (Score:3, Insightful)
Convergence could be a buzzword for businesses coordinating with each other on products; the coordination allows them to get what they want from their customers (money, information) while at the same time using the power that their cooperation gives them to ignore what their customers want (as often as possible). Convergence is a way for vendors to ignore price and flexibility and instead go for a comprehensive and interrelated set of products. It might negate the need for businesses to compete on price because they don't have competition anymore (the web of interconnections between products would make price choices difficult, and flexibility irrelevant) and because by linking items together, choices between competing products become more difficult because the constraints (their effects on other purchases) become overwhelming.
For the most part, convergence may not be about products much more convenient; it seems to be less about improving the lives of customers and more about making them irrelevant. By making choices difficult (if not impossible), convergence might allow businesses to even more blatantly ignore their customers while guaranteeing themselves their business. In this scenario, customers' wills would be an obstacle to businesses getting money from them. Ideally, your possessions would spend your money as their manufacturers see fit, and would not have to worry about that pesky free will...
Re:Actually...Convergence happened ALREADY (Score:3, Insightful)
Yes, they both play DVDs and CDs, but I hardly know anybody who use them that way because the value just isn't there, at least in this generation. The DVD playback kits for Xbox and PS2 cost $30. You get a remote control, infrared dongle, and the DVD decoder. Back when DVD players cost $200-300 it may have been worth it, but now you can get a cheap DVD player for $40, maybe even $30. Price points as much as features and convenience will determine which converged devices catch on or not.
Convergence? how about divergence (Score:3, Insightful)
I know you can do all these things now, but not without a bunch of proprietary, unpredictable fiddling even if the right devices are involved. I want the ability to be common, not a rare combination. If converagnce means all my gadgets have the computing power to speak the same language, then Let's do it!
Re:Yes, but... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:So Sorry- I've only got one. (Score:3, Insightful)
His problem is that the sequence changes if you were listening to music because your amp was already on, for example.
Maybe now you started realizing that you didn't answer the problem. If you re-read the post you replied to, that is.
Re:My thoughts. (Score:3, Insightful)
So you don't want to fix the problem. Nobody's going to take away your rheostats and coil springs...what are you worried about?
Me, I think it would be convenient to have a database of the contents of my fridge and pantry that I can match against my recipe database, and build my grocery list according to what's missing.
That might not be convenient to you. I encourage you to not buy one.
Re:So Sorry- I've only got one. (Score:5, Insightful)
You do realize that there are 32 combinations for these appliances to be on or off. Granted not all of them make sense, let's say just 5. Now you are saying that your solution is to program the transition from every combination to every other combination. That is 25 pre-programmed buttons to just start up or shut down everything.
It'll take longer to figure out which one you want to use than to do it manually.
The real problem is that the command to shut down is the same as the command to power up. If they were separate, there would be no problem at all. Or less.
Re:So Sorry- I've only got one. (Score:2, Insightful)
The mistake most people do when they try to learn about computers is that they try to learn all of it in sitting as a one huge packet. They don't take time to learn about the theory behind what they do, and thus they can't tell the various subsystems from each other, leading to seeing the computer as a chaotic mess.
So no, the system is not complex, you're just going about teaching you're wife about it the wrong way. You're trying route memorization of keypress sequences, which can't work in any sensibly designed device (because a sensibly designed device would not need a fixed sequence of button presses, but just one "macro" button).
What you need to do is tell your wife how the system is put together, what the possible modes of operation on various devices can be, and how to switch between those modes. Then it will become obvious that you need to switch the TV to "receive from DVD" mode before watching DVD.
The other solution is to buy a computer, connect it to each device, and program it to switch each device to a correct mode when the computer receives the "watch DVD" or "watch TV" signal. As this is an extremely simple (computing power wise) operation, any PC ever produced shouldn't have any problem with it, and thus you will survive with very little spending.
Except, of course, that you need infrared receivers/transmitters to communicate with the devices. But those shouldn't be too costly...
Thought I have to wonder how mind-boglingly complex is it to learn to press six buttons in a sequence, even if the sequence has horrendously ambigious conditional steps such as "if TV is already on, skip TV ON phase" ?
Re:that setup is just cool (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:So Sorry- I've only got one. (Score:3, Insightful)
...and which utterly fails the test of "usability", under any sense of the word. Your idea of a piece of paper is particularly funny. He can simply do that now, with the individual remotes. Unless your argument is that your plan involves a shorter crib-sheet.
The problem is that there is no way for a remote to determine the state of the device it controls, and there is no way for another device to determine the state of another device. That is the problem. Every remote in the world tries to solve the problem, and none of them have, because the fundamental problem lies with the device, not the remote. It is simply not a solvable problem with the current tech.
(It is slightly less intractable if you purchase an "all-in-one" setup from Sony or the like. My statement only applies to disparate components from multiple manufacturers. Neither are you to mention the remote with the LCD that tries to remember your settings. When somebody comes through and turns things on and off without the remote and screws up everything, that remote then goes into 20-Questions. I do not find that amusing in my devices of convenience.)
Indeed, I solved the problem of how-to-do-this-or-that with the entertainment center by showing people how to do what they want to do AT the entertainment center. The remotes only serve as Volume +/- and Channel +/- buttons. And, since we don't have cable, we hardly ever use the Channel buttons anyway. Our lives are significantly simpler, since all we do is watch the occasional movie from Netflix, but even so, it's only a matter of pushing a few well-labled buttons on the reciever to set things the way you want, then you sit down to watch. I find that to be easier to explain than non-, poorly-, or misleadingly-labled, miniscule buttons with no tactile feedback on modern remotes.
BTW, spending >$30 on a remote should be grounds for automatic promotion into the 95% "Too much money, not enough sense" tax bracket, and automatic nutsack-ectomy. (Yes, everybody who buys a schmancy remote is a guy--guaranteed.)