Convergence is NOT bullshit

Let me just say, for the record, that Chris and I see eye-to-eye on a lot of things, but I've got to disagree with him on this one. We've even gone back and forth on this topic over several months. And even though I've wanted to I just haven't been able to blog about this one until now.

As with most general platitudes (which sound great to say, but upon further examination don't always hold water), one needs to first set the context of the remark. Seamus Blackley (one of the original creators of the Microsoft Xbox) was correct when he made his statement – in the context of what he was talking about.

The Xbox would NOT be a good all-in-one home media device (at least, not right out of the gate, when they had the conversation many years ago). I still don't think it's ready for prime time. Will Microsoft get there? Probably? Will the Xbox be the vehicle? Don't know. But, that converged functionality is coming; people want it and companies want to figure out how to deliver it. (In fact, I've got a few ideas of my own on how to do this...but that's a blog for another day...)

Here are some good examples of convergence (which I am summarizing to mean a successful combination of functionality and delivery vehicle):

- secure fax machine
- recent versions of smart phones & Blackberries (Treo 700P/W, the HTCs, etc.)
- SkyNet service (which got renamed to Flynet...hmmm) on Lufthansa (no, I'm not talking about this one; I'm talking about this one)
- roller skates and Heelies
- Reese's Peanut Butter Cups
- cable industry converging with the telephone industry into something new (i.e. - Comcast, SBC, Qwest, etc.)
- Youtube.com
- Amazon.com (internet, book store, supply chain and logistics expertise)
- (and yes, the swiss army knife)

...and there are more. The point is, by bringing together different functionality and vehicles with which to deliver it to defined markets, certain companies will gain advantages over their rivals, for some period of time. So, while I think this is also a good and cool example of convergence, ultimately market acceptance and business execution will determine how long that advantage remains.

The graphic that Chris posted depicting a toaster / coffee maker / bread baker is an example of “Convergence of Convenience”. The question is not, "Could you eat at The Palm with a Swiss Army knife and enjoy the experience (well, I could, but that's just me)?" Rather, the quesstion is, "Would you eat at The Palm with a Swiss Army knife and enjoy the experience"? Most people (the Contrarians among us aside) would say "No" to that experience.

Currently, I think most “smart cameras” and cell phones would fall into this category. Honestly, I see this type of innovation as "educational" more than anything else. "Let's show people what this technology can do, let's give it to them, and then let's step back. Many people knew they wanted a Walkman before Sony came out with one. And so you havethings like this and this.

No, most of these examples of convergence are not mind-blowingly earth shattering – but for a short period of time, they are market differentiating. And that is really the point. If a company can execute well with that tactic then they will have an advantage for some period of time. Other companies will try to copy them. Consumers / Markets will then vote with their dollars. They will also find unintended ways to leverage the new technology in ways the creators (probably) hadn't even considered when they created the original specifications. Of note:

- music sampling in rap and rock music
- tire swings
- coke bottle bird feeders
- camera phone to take picture of the license plates and damage to cars in a car crash
- other --> who knows?

And people in companies will have to innovate again. And the cycle will continue...and that's why Convergence is not Bullshit. Some additional food for thought...