Log in

View Full Version : Convergence! Huh! Yeah! What Is It Good For?


Gary Sheynkman
08-31-2004, 05:30 PM
Hello and welcome to 2004. We were promised flying cars, cell phones that make cappuccino, and a colony on Mars. Maybe the science fiction writers of several decades ago were just a bit ambitious…<br /><br />Instead of flying cars we have SUVs, instead of cell phones that make cappuccino we have GSM that only works where you are not, and instead of a colony on Mars we have decade old probes just approaching it.<br /><br />What else do we have though? The past several years have seen the explosion of digital. Digital this digital that. However, since for the last 50 or so years we have been innovating for the purpose of convenience, the great engineers that gave us our digital “stuff” decided to combine everything into one device. Now that is a great concept, but has it worked?<!><br /><br />There are only two types of convergences, the good kind and the bad kind. Some manufacturers take the 3 necessities (MP3 player, digital camera, digital camcorder) and make great pieces of technology while others screw it up. So let us take a look eh?<br /><br /><span><b>What Makes Good Convergence? </b></span><br />Let us be honest with ourselves, people who buy a BMW x5 don’t go off-roading in it. Thus it is safe to say that we should expect certain compromises in devices that do it all. The problem arises when A) the device does both jobs poorly and/or B) when one of the converged functions is useless. Thus the choice becomes utterly personal. Some people are willing to sacrifice more of one “thing” to get another “thing” to work well. Overall though, there are good and bad trends to watch out for, so without further adieu let us get started.<br /><br /><span><b>Bad News First</b></span><br />Generalizing is bad, so I won’t. My first example of bad convergence is…well just about every digital camcorder on the market today! Had you guessing for a while eh? With the exception of the most basic models nearly all digital camcorders have the “digital camera feature” that allows the user to save a picture on a storage card for later viewing. The problem arises from the fact that the 640*480 images that these camcorders take are not only grainy due to low resolution, but also poor due to the fact that the camcorder chip/lens was not meant for that kind of function. Most consumers were aware of this fact until such manufacturers as Sony started pumping out 1+ mega pixel camcorders that rival the digital cameras of today. Unfortunately it is yet another hoax. Since the poor image quality largely arises from a poor chip/lens combination the images that that fancy new 3 mega pixel Sony camcorder is producing will still not be nearly as good as a 2 mega pixel low-end model from the same manufacturer. Strike one for convergence at this point in time…can it get any worse? Yes!<br /><br />What happens when a company has the hubris to think that it CAN indeed create a perfect devise? The Samsung SCD5000 that’s what. It has all the great traits of a flop. It is overpriced, I’ve seen more attractive road kill, and it does not do a good job at being a convergence device. CNET hated it in their review, I couldn’t figure out how to use the thing after spending an hour at the local electronics store with it, yet Samsung had the audacity to charge an arm and a leg for this device. $1499.95 is what this heap of junk would have cost you. With that budget you can not only get yourself a very nice camera (certainly better than the attempt at a decent 4 mega pixel camera that Samsung would have provided you with) as well as a mid-range camcorder which would provide you with great quality film in a package that would not scare away all the children you are trying to videotape. Strike two.<br /><br />Unfortunately my convergence rant does not end there. I have to finish it off in round three. Have you ever seen anyone use an FM radio pen? Actually switch TV programs with a Casio watch? Watch TV in their shower (not bath…shower)? Play music with their back-pack integrated sound system? I can honestly answer "no" to all those questions. A note to Sharper Image inventors: when an idea comes to your greedy pockets…err…heads, make the world a better place, and keep that idea there. Strike three…and you are (yar’) out! <br /><br /><span><b>Light At The End Of The Tunnel</b></span><br />Don’t fret faithful media enthusiasts! There are plenty of companies that get it right. Panasonic is one of them. The D-snap is a great device, albeit a bit expensive. It doesn’t try to say that it does everything well, yet it does not make a sacrifices on a specific device. It takes decent MPEG4 video; it plays MP3 and AAC audio; it takes decent 2 mega pixel stills; it even records your beautiful voice; and works as a DVR! It is not perfect, SD memory is not dirt cheap, and quality can only improve, but it is a great start toward having a device for all occasions. I also applaud Panasonic for constantly improving this product as well as providing an awesome range of features per price. It is hip. It is fresh. It is the wave of the future.<br /><br />Wait! If you order now you will also get another installment of why convergence is great! My personally favourite new convergence product is the PMP (personally media player). What started life on a tiny screen meant for view photos evolved into a booming industry that is on the verge of a massive explosion (strange…no video iPod here). Archos deserves the credit for brining this industry to life. 20GB+4 inch screen+DVR+MP3 (and every other conceivable format) equals a winner! Their latest creation, the Archos AV400, is now rivaled by RCA, iriver, and soon other Microsoft operated devices. Who could have thought that video and music could now rest in the palm of your hand? Take note: PMPs are proper convergence devices. The are offered with plenty of storage space, great screens, and even slots for flashcards so you can use them on the go with your digital camera!<br /><br /><span><b>A Final Thought</b></span><br />Sure, we don’t have flying cars, but look at it this way: the next time you are riding the train to work you can enjoy your favorite sitcom that you missed the night before and have a compact recording device at hand when you see some stiff in a nice suit spill his latte all over his WSJ.

Filip Norrgard
08-31-2004, 06:06 PM
Heh, nice "rant" about technology today. :lol:

...instead of cell phones that make cappuccino we have GSM that only works where you are not, ...
This line is something that I don't neccessarily agree with. For me it's more the other way around: GSM works too well where it shouldn't! :roll: But that is just the case here in my country I guess. :D North America mostly suffers from poor GSM coverage, am I right?

Jason Dunn
08-31-2004, 06:11 PM
But that is just the case here in my country I guess. :D North America mostly suffers from poor GSM coverage, am I right?

Yes, it's not a limitation of the technology, it's a limitation in how the technology is implemented. In most European and Asian countries, you can throw up a dozen cell towers and blanket the whole country. In North America, there's much more space to cover, and hence coverage isn't as good because the carriers aren't willing (or able?) to spend the money needed for "perfect" coverage.

Filip Norrgard
08-31-2004, 06:36 PM
Yes, it's not a limitation of the technology, it's a limitation in how the technology is implemented. In most European and Asian countries, you can throw up a dozen cell towers and blanket the whole country. In North America, there's much more space to cover, and hence coverage isn't as good because the carriers aren't willing (or able?) to spend the money needed for "perfect" coverage.
Definately.

I've gotten the image that the North American operators aren't exactly willing to pull out the money for the towers. The coverage we've got was the result of investments done in the 90's and also government regulations giving a general direction. Without the will to invest and government pushing the cell providers, we've wouldn't be where we are today. :)

It doesn't help that the (American) cellproviders are trying to skweeze the cents out of the few towers there are as they will eventually get over-populated too soon. This does (if unremedied) get back at the providers and hurts their incomes as a result. Plus, the cell providers also seem to lack a sense of direction: "should we go 2G or 3G"? (Ironic in a way.) :roll:

mobile
08-31-2004, 07:26 PM
On the topic of GSM, or mobile phone coverage in general, it works really, really well in Europe (and Asia). The great coverage (at least in Europe -- I have no experience of Asian networks) is due to the fact that when an operator is awarded spectrum, the operator is required to cover a certain amount of the population (in many European countries up to 98% or so), or their spectrum license will be revoked. As far as I know, no such rules apply to U.S. operators.

I guess one can always argue that government shouldn't be setting the rules for commercial companies, but the European approach has definitely driven good coverage, adoption of new standards and technologies, as well as competitive pricing. That's more than can be said for the U.S. market. Here in the U.S. I often hear complaints about poor service and boring old phones without the latest technology.

/// mobile

Gary Sheynkman
08-31-2004, 10:11 PM
Heh, nice "rant" about technology today. :lol:

...instead of cell phones that make cappuccino we have GSM that only works where you are not, ...
This line is something that I don't neccessarily agree with. For me it's more the other way around: GSM works too well where it shouldn't! :roll: But that is just the case here in my country I guess. :D North America mostly suffers from poor GSM coverage, am I right?

Yes I was writing about US coverage. Everytime I go to Europe I have no trouble going wherever with just one unit and carrier...eh...I wanna go back sometimes

Crocuta
09-01-2004, 04:18 AM
[quote="Jason DunnYes, it's not a limitation of the technology, it's a limitation in how the technology is implemented. In most European and Asian countries, you can throw up a dozen cell towers and blanket the whole country. In North America, there's much more space to cover, and hence coverage isn't as good because the carriers aren't willing (or able?) to spend the money needed for "perfect" coverage.[/quote]

As others have suggested, a lot of it has to do with the lack of standards in the US and so the investment we do have is a mishmash of old analog, CDMA, and GSM with a few 2.5G options tossed in for larger markets.

The EU decided early on to standardize on GSM, most of the rest of the world followed, and that is paying huge dividends in those markets now. Americans who've never spent significant time overseas using the GSM networks in Europe/Asia/Africa/Australia/New Zealand probably can't imagine what it's like to have service that's as clear and reliable as your land line (unless you live in a big city). Heck, I got better mobile coverage out in the African bush than I do at my college in Central Virginia.

This goes back to issues we've discussed before for other products. Consumers and societies lose when there is competition in standards. They win when there is competition between companies within a standard. A bit of government direction can be healthy for an industry.