I agree completely to be honest - technology is starting to bridge too many boundaries. Phones with Video players, MP3 players that do video, PC's that are TV's and DVD players. It's all too much. Perfect the original product, not make an excuse and make something different.
I have to say, phones with MP3 players and cameras are a good idea, but keep them simple! We don't want a thousand menu's to make it change track, and then another thousand to be able to recieve a phone call, or write a new SMS.
The only thing I disagree with is the slander of swiss army knives... :p
I think convergence is all good, but needs to be done well, as it's been said before, it's all good if the features included are, useful and easy to use, but also work well, My first phone with an MP3 play was my god old nokia n-gage and whilest you looked like a idiot talking to it the phone actually worked well, playing agmes was a boon and the mp3 play was fine if you used hi quality mp3's. only major draw back was the battery life was shocking especially if you used any of the features that wern't a phone.
My current phone is the i mate k jam and I choose this primarily for the PDA functions as I never had my PDA on my when I needed it, and to that extent it's great I know always have my calendar and contacks at the touch of a button, it is how ever a pretty awful phone, difficult to navigate with out using the stylus and generally a bit temremental. but it does what I wanted and I'll put up with it as to me it's worth it to be able to stay much better oranised.
So waht we need is convergence, just convergence done well, not just extra featres chucked in for the hell of it
Originally Posted by Blue65 It's the ever-present decision whether you want one device which is average at many things or several devices which excel at the activity for which they were designed. My phone is an old nokia 6610, nothing fancy, but it's so simple it's never crashed and does what it's supposed to do without complex eight-tier submenus. My SLR takes excellent pictures, and though it's more bulky than a phone camera a bad picture from it would be better than a good picture from the average phone cam. It's all well and good being able to shove these features into a device the size of my thumbnail but to me it's inviting mediocrity. :|
kinda missing the point i think, the phone cam is not supposed to replace the digicam imo, its for a very different purpose
its for taking quick snapshots when you dont have a digicam and imo its far superior to a dSLR for that purpose, would you take your £1000+ dSLR to the pub? no of course not, so its a choice of having a phone cam and getting some half-decent pics or getting none at all
i have a k750i too, maybe its just that the k750 is so awesome unless you have one you cant understand why having a cam in your phone rocks ;) :p
its never crashed either and aside from configuration menus you never have to go more than a couple of tiers down
eg. i want to write a text message, i push the joystick thing to the left and start writing it, i click the left button when im done and scroll to hte persons name and click the joystick
i want to make a call, i push the joystick down, scroll to the name and click the joystick
i want to take a photo, i open the lens cover, rotate cam 90 degrees and hit the take photo button
it excels at being a phone and it excels at being a snapshot machine
Personally I like convergence. I hate having more than one thing to cart around. I love being able to just throw one thing into my pocket and have everything and I don't mind putting up with a few more button presses or a slightly clunky menu to get that. If I could get a PDA/MP3/laptop/phone/video player all rolled into one I would be happy. The big problem of course is the screen, and also the battery. Since they have not come up with a foldable screen whatever the size of the screen they choose is what you have to use.
Now aside form great dreams what I do have is an older PocketPC. I use it for basically everything that doesnt need the power and screen size of a full computer. It can do photos, music, video, games, lots of reading, and even browsing the web if I really want to. Even after about 2 years the battery is good enough that even if I am using it heavily it will last all day. Now I have to say that watching videos on the small PDA screen, although I have done it before on a long train ride, is not the best format.
Think about the computer. This, especially the HTPC, is really the ultimate convergence. Not many people complain about the PC having too many features and functions. Nobody pines for a dedicated box to do web browsing, another dedicated box for e-mail, another dedicated box for word processing, etc. That is because they have had years to develop a very modular system, the time will also come for portable devices.
So I say bring on the all-in-ones! I'm not saying what they are coming up with now is all that great, they could do with some better design and more modularity, but I think that this is the right track.
Originally Posted by Stubkier Great article, could not agree more.
Why buy one item that does three things very bad, when one could buy 3 things that does just one thing but is good at it.
Loved the example with the Mp3 player.
Simon
/nod
Its all compromise! But sometimes, even when you have money you cant get what you want because of the *bundled features* which by definiton must raise the price due to inherent component complexity.
Also blame the marketing people (or congratulate them) in making you think that these devices are *indespensible*.... does a picture of your drunk mate really matter, when you really need to phone 999? <bad analogy>
The argument about the HTPC is in my opinon a false one. Your PC is modular in design created deliberatley to take a number of *specifically dedicated* components... your graphics card does graphics; not pictures and phone calls; your network card doesn't do sound... NVidia dedicate themselves to graphics; cisco to comms: *core principles*... The HTPC does not fit into the Swiss Army knife metaphor for me as it is modular not *integrated*....
just had a play with my freinds zen vision and I have to say playing futurama on it was great, but that has a 640x480 screen :P
The main issues with the mobile phones are the rushed operating system/firm ware. My dads crashes when using blue tooth and has the worst menu structure ever obsesed with getting you on their online services. What would work better would be a simple menu:
Music
Video
Games
Phone
Settings
file transfer
mesage center (email/txt)
how about showin that on startup ;)
AMEN! :) This is the perfect article for the idiots that made the N-Gauge, PSP, and the ROKR so they can understand why their theoretically awesome toys are Piss poor crap no one wants.
So very true. I got a MP3 player for xmas (No idea what make/model, it's unbranded so no idea where it came from, and it's pink, nice choice of colour...), and it takes a good 3 mins for me to select menu options and wait for it just to load my list of music up and let me choose a track, going through menus of choosing to play videos etc. etc. I use it to listen to on the bus but usually the bus is already at my destination before I even get to listen to anything.
Why don't people just sit down and think: "Why does this MP3 played need to show video?".
Even if it had a decent resolution etc, I'm never gonna use it coz I don't wanna look like a complete ponce sat on the bus, ocassionaly bursting out into audilble laughter at jokes in whatever film or TV program I'm watching on it.
In the cell phone market especially I think this is a result of the need tro stay competitive when you've run out of good ideas. I mean, i guess they can't fingure out how to meke a cell phone that works better, so lets add a bunch of unnessicary crap to it and see if people will buy it.
What irks me about all this is that each new cell phone I get has a shorter and shorter range. The first one I had almost worked at my house. My current one (A Motorola V188) doesn't work until I get within 5 miles of town. Ithink this is because the older phones were more willing to play nice with other networks. My old phone had no problem hopping back and forth between US and Canadian towers depending on what it could get the best signal. The new one only talks to towers from my phone company. VERY frustrating!
I have a disposable cell phone. It's tiny, indestructable, the battery lasts SEVERAL DAYS, or weeks if I simply leave it turned off when not in use. Frankly I hate cell phones, I only use this one as a replacement for the pay phones I can NEVER FIND.
I have an MP3 player. It's also tiny, very sturdy, the battery lasts a good 9 hours, and only has 6 buttons. Couldn't be simpler.
I have a PDA that was adapted SPECIFICALLY for playing videos. It's extremely durable, not as portable as the other items because it has a screen large enough for subtitles to be read easily, and it get 8 hours of battery life. It would make a mediocure mp3 player and it's definitely too large to be a cell phone.
Cram all of those together and you will end up with something that is nowhere near as effective as any of the items individually. I also don't need all of them with me at all times or all circumstances, and I would feel sorry for anyone that would.
This article brings up some good points, and I agree that the multi-faceted-ness of most devices today are completely superfluous and poorly implemented. But to play the other side fo the fence, it is because of all these additions that our products ultimately get better.
Having video on your iPod (whcih no one with half a brain would really use for more than 5 minutes until the "wow" factor passed) causes major drain on the battery. The result, better improved battery life not to mention the increased storage space.
The issue is that companies are pressured to one-up the competition, and they do this by adding functions to their devices in an attempt to have it appeal to a broader audience. Along with that comes poor implementation the first few times the idea is explored.
Look at mp3 players. When I first saw major main stream releases of them by creative (remember the nomad jukebox?) back in 99/2000 they were HORRIBLE. They were giant. People could have complained just the same.. and said, "why not stick to CD players? Why push this TECHNOLOGY!?" Its the same with this, While the video iPod may not appeal to everyone, it will to some. More importantly, it acts as a spring board to launch mp3 players design, and technical composition ahead of its times!
As a second bonus, it helps refine the ideas of portable video. Consumers are realizing that they dont want to watch media on a 2" screen, or video on the go isnt as excellent in practice as it is in theory. These Swiss Army knives of the technological world may be cumbersome and confusing but they serve a very VERY important role in the development and evolution of technology as a whole.
Back in the day, the PC was the Swiss Army knife of the computing world. Compared to the task specific systems out at the time it was extremely complex and confusing. We still see a slight ripple of that today between home computers and consoles. While consoles are becoming ever more diverse in terms of functionality, they are still a puddle in comparison to the bottomless lake that the PC is.
The PC is much more complicated. To load a game, or any software you have to perform a series fo tasks from installing, to loading, to configuring your software.. but which platform inspires more innovation? Which platform pushes the industry?
I think I've made my point. You dont always need to purchase or love every product.. but understand their need and the contribution they make to the big picture. :)
An MP3 player DID used to be huge. But it also was meant to move MUSIC forward into a new portability format. It's not like the MP3 was a video player strapped onto your CD player, it was the replacement of it. Nothing less, nothing more. It didn't add a load of new very unrelated features, it simply allowed the advancement of digital music to no longer require optical media. Big difference from strapping a screen on it and calling it a multimedia device.
The PC has already been discussed earlier in the thread with the outline that it is modular as opposed to integrated. I think that definition is important to remember here....it is designed to be built from the ground up as what you need it to be. And a PC is not fabricated and pulled together entirely by one company...
But a PC is a good example of integration going bad, too. Imagine a basic dell, purchased from the shop. Now think of all the crap on it that nobody ends up using, because they're trying to give almost every home user the tools they'll need straight out of the box. So they bundle 5 internet companies, 2 anti-virus, works, and 15 other little things so that it's all there for you. All integrated, as they're installed for you before you even get them.
What's one of the first things a good IT person does with a dell? A clean format.
Personally, I love gadgets. They're sometimes a lot of fun, but sometimes just plain useless.
When cell phones were starting to come out with internet access and cameras I looked at my friends with their insane cell phone bills and laughed. For one, I never answer the phone unless I want to talk. If I have a cell phone around that still doesn't change the fact that I either want to or don't want to talk. But with a cell phone, people expect you to have it at all times and that you -must- answer. I felt it was a leash. I did not get one.
When I moved away from home, compared the cost of a landline to a cell phone, the usefulness/versatility offered by a cell phone and the fixed, single land line, I opted for the smarter of the two. Despite having to keep the juicer charged , keep up with the crafty little thing, and trying to keep from breaking it at any point in time(which I did a week or two after getting it, anyway).
Ever since then mine's been broken in several aspects and lots of people tell me to get a new one, but the trouble's just not worth it. They'd argue that it was in perfect condition, I'd say I bought it used, but was told it was pretty well new, etc. I don't really care that the speaker cuts out sometimes(read "most of the time" no "the most inconvenient times") and that I can no longer just pull it out of my pocket and, without opening it, read the time display or caller ID. You see, I broke the display lifting heavy things when it was in my pocket.
Even without these handy things(caller ID, time display, speaker that doesn't often work), I can get the usefulness I need out of the phone. I don't use the internet, text messaging(though I have used it before, just not like I've seen -some- people use it), or the time display.
Oh, and it has a camera. My camera has a 2.0 megapixel image display, but no flash. Oh, and very limited storage. And it comes in this terribly fragile case. But it can be carried into areas that I shouldn't take a camera. Not that you can see anything clearly in the images. And you can't just buy some AA batteries to temporarily replace the battery you forgot to charge before you took the camera out with you. Oh, wait, have I been saying camera? I mean phone.
Yeah, when does the item stop being the cell phone with camera option, and start becomming camera/phone? I've yet to see a double-use item that retains the quality of either of the industries.
Cell phones will not soon have camera-quality pictures, even though they sport a camera. They won't be very good internet browsers because of their digital display and lack of video card for faster loading.
To shorten this whole thing(and make me consider deleting all of the above for simplicity and brevity), I say that I have(perhaps a bit too stubbornly) always been against these "gadgets" but have LOVED seeing gadget technology. It's a sort of morbid curiosity, to be honest. I know the technology for one (insert high-tech item) will be better than something being crammed into a smaller package with a(n) (insert some other high-tech item).
Honestly, I still laugh at the people with cell phones that have cameras, mp3 players, movie capabilities, and internet access. A cell phone should be used to communicate with other people. An mp3 player should be used for audio entertainment. A portable dvd player should be... well, a laptop, to be honest.
In conclusion, I agree with the article and the sentiments of the writer.
Comments 26 to 40 of 40
good article
I have to say, phones with MP3 players and cameras are a good idea, but keep them simple! We don't want a thousand menu's to make it change track, and then another thousand to be able to recieve a phone call, or write a new SMS.
The only thing I disagree with is the slander of swiss army knives... :p
My current phone is the i mate k jam and I choose this primarily for the PDA functions as I never had my PDA on my when I needed it, and to that extent it's great I know always have my calendar and contacks at the touch of a button, it is how ever a pretty awful phone, difficult to navigate with out using the stylus and generally a bit temremental. but it does what I wanted and I'll put up with it as to me it's worth it to be able to stay much better oranised.
So waht we need is convergence, just convergence done well, not just extra featres chucked in for the hell of it
its for taking quick snapshots when you dont have a digicam and imo its far superior to a dSLR for that purpose, would you take your £1000+ dSLR to the pub? no of course not, so its a choice of having a phone cam and getting some half-decent pics or getting none at all
i have a k750i too, maybe its just that the k750 is so awesome unless you have one you cant understand why having a cam in your phone rocks ;) :p
its never crashed either and aside from configuration menus you never have to go more than a couple of tiers down
eg. i want to write a text message, i push the joystick thing to the left and start writing it, i click the left button when im done and scroll to hte persons name and click the joystick
i want to make a call, i push the joystick down, scroll to the name and click the joystick
i want to take a photo, i open the lens cover, rotate cam 90 degrees and hit the take photo button
it excels at being a phone and it excels at being a snapshot machine
Why buy one item that does three things very bad, when one could buy 3 things that does just one thing but is good at it.
Loved the example with the Mp3 player.
Simon
Now aside form great dreams what I do have is an older PocketPC. I use it for basically everything that doesnt need the power and screen size of a full computer. It can do photos, music, video, games, lots of reading, and even browsing the web if I really want to. Even after about 2 years the battery is good enough that even if I am using it heavily it will last all day. Now I have to say that watching videos on the small PDA screen, although I have done it before on a long train ride, is not the best format.
Think about the computer. This, especially the HTPC, is really the ultimate convergence. Not many people complain about the PC having too many features and functions. Nobody pines for a dedicated box to do web browsing, another dedicated box for e-mail, another dedicated box for word processing, etc. That is because they have had years to develop a very modular system, the time will also come for portable devices.
So I say bring on the all-in-ones! I'm not saying what they are coming up with now is all that great, they could do with some better design and more modularity, but I think that this is the right track.
/nod
Its all compromise! But sometimes, even when you have money you cant get what you want because of the *bundled features* which by definiton must raise the price due to inherent component complexity.
Also blame the marketing people (or congratulate them) in making you think that these devices are *indespensible*.... does a picture of your drunk mate really matter, when you really need to phone 999? <bad analogy>
The argument about the HTPC is in my opinon a false one. Your PC is modular in design created deliberatley to take a number of *specifically dedicated* components... your graphics card does graphics; not pictures and phone calls; your network card doesn't do sound... NVidia dedicate themselves to graphics; cisco to comms: *core principles*... The HTPC does not fit into the Swiss Army knife metaphor for me as it is modular not *integrated*....
The main issues with the mobile phones are the rushed operating system/firm ware. My dads crashes when using blue tooth and has the worst menu structure ever obsesed with getting you on their online services. What would work better would be a simple menu:
Music
Video
Games
Phone
Settings
file transfer
mesage center (email/txt)
how about showin that on startup ;)
Why don't people just sit down and think: "Why does this MP3 played need to show video?".
Even if it had a decent resolution etc, I'm never gonna use it coz I don't wanna look like a complete ponce sat on the bus, ocassionaly bursting out into audilble laughter at jokes in whatever film or TV program I'm watching on it.
What irks me about all this is that each new cell phone I get has a shorter and shorter range. The first one I had almost worked at my house. My current one (A Motorola V188) doesn't work until I get within 5 miles of town. Ithink this is because the older phones were more willing to play nice with other networks. My old phone had no problem hopping back and forth between US and Canadian towers depending on what it could get the best signal. The new one only talks to towers from my phone company. VERY frustrating!
I have a disposable cell phone. It's tiny, indestructable, the battery lasts SEVERAL DAYS, or weeks if I simply leave it turned off when not in use. Frankly I hate cell phones, I only use this one as a replacement for the pay phones I can NEVER FIND.
I have an MP3 player. It's also tiny, very sturdy, the battery lasts a good 9 hours, and only has 6 buttons. Couldn't be simpler.
I have a PDA that was adapted SPECIFICALLY for playing videos. It's extremely durable, not as portable as the other items because it has a screen large enough for subtitles to be read easily, and it get 8 hours of battery life. It would make a mediocure mp3 player and it's definitely too large to be a cell phone.
Cram all of those together and you will end up with something that is nowhere near as effective as any of the items individually. I also don't need all of them with me at all times or all circumstances, and I would feel sorry for anyone that would.
Having video on your iPod (whcih no one with half a brain would really use for more than 5 minutes until the "wow" factor passed) causes major drain on the battery. The result, better improved battery life not to mention the increased storage space.
The issue is that companies are pressured to one-up the competition, and they do this by adding functions to their devices in an attempt to have it appeal to a broader audience. Along with that comes poor implementation the first few times the idea is explored.
Look at mp3 players. When I first saw major main stream releases of them by creative (remember the nomad jukebox?) back in 99/2000 they were HORRIBLE. They were giant. People could have complained just the same.. and said, "why not stick to CD players? Why push this TECHNOLOGY!?" Its the same with this, While the video iPod may not appeal to everyone, it will to some. More importantly, it acts as a spring board to launch mp3 players design, and technical composition ahead of its times!
As a second bonus, it helps refine the ideas of portable video. Consumers are realizing that they dont want to watch media on a 2" screen, or video on the go isnt as excellent in practice as it is in theory. These Swiss Army knives of the technological world may be cumbersome and confusing but they serve a very VERY important role in the development and evolution of technology as a whole.
Back in the day, the PC was the Swiss Army knife of the computing world. Compared to the task specific systems out at the time it was extremely complex and confusing. We still see a slight ripple of that today between home computers and consoles. While consoles are becoming ever more diverse in terms of functionality, they are still a puddle in comparison to the bottomless lake that the PC is.
The PC is much more complicated. To load a game, or any software you have to perform a series fo tasks from installing, to loading, to configuring your software.. but which platform inspires more innovation? Which platform pushes the industry?
I think I've made my point. You dont always need to purchase or love every product.. but understand their need and the contribution they make to the big picture. :)
An MP3 player DID used to be huge. But it also was meant to move MUSIC forward into a new portability format. It's not like the MP3 was a video player strapped onto your CD player, it was the replacement of it. Nothing less, nothing more. It didn't add a load of new very unrelated features, it simply allowed the advancement of digital music to no longer require optical media. Big difference from strapping a screen on it and calling it a multimedia device.
The PC has already been discussed earlier in the thread with the outline that it is modular as opposed to integrated. I think that definition is important to remember here....it is designed to be built from the ground up as what you need it to be. And a PC is not fabricated and pulled together entirely by one company...
But a PC is a good example of integration going bad, too. Imagine a basic dell, purchased from the shop. Now think of all the crap on it that nobody ends up using, because they're trying to give almost every home user the tools they'll need straight out of the box. So they bundle 5 internet companies, 2 anti-virus, works, and 15 other little things so that it's all there for you. All integrated, as they're installed for you before you even get them.
What's one of the first things a good IT person does with a dell? A clean format.
'Nuff said. :D
When cell phones were starting to come out with internet access and cameras I looked at my friends with their insane cell phone bills and laughed. For one, I never answer the phone unless I want to talk. If I have a cell phone around that still doesn't change the fact that I either want to or don't want to talk. But with a cell phone, people expect you to have it at all times and that you -must- answer. I felt it was a leash. I did not get one.
When I moved away from home, compared the cost of a landline to a cell phone, the usefulness/versatility offered by a cell phone and the fixed, single land line, I opted for the smarter of the two. Despite having to keep the juicer charged , keep up with the crafty little thing, and trying to keep from breaking it at any point in time(which I did a week or two after getting it, anyway).
Ever since then mine's been broken in several aspects and lots of people tell me to get a new one, but the trouble's just not worth it. They'd argue that it was in perfect condition, I'd say I bought it used, but was told it was pretty well new, etc. I don't really care that the speaker cuts out sometimes(read "most of the time" no "the most inconvenient times") and that I can no longer just pull it out of my pocket and, without opening it, read the time display or caller ID. You see, I broke the display lifting heavy things when it was in my pocket.
Even without these handy things(caller ID, time display, speaker that doesn't often work), I can get the usefulness I need out of the phone. I don't use the internet, text messaging(though I have used it before, just not like I've seen -some- people use it), or the time display.
Oh, and it has a camera. My camera has a 2.0 megapixel image display, but no flash. Oh, and very limited storage. And it comes in this terribly fragile case. But it can be carried into areas that I shouldn't take a camera. Not that you can see anything clearly in the images. And you can't just buy some AA batteries to temporarily replace the battery you forgot to charge before you took the camera out with you. Oh, wait, have I been saying camera? I mean phone.
Yeah, when does the item stop being the cell phone with camera option, and start becomming camera/phone? I've yet to see a double-use item that retains the quality of either of the industries.
Cell phones will not soon have camera-quality pictures, even though they sport a camera. They won't be very good internet browsers because of their digital display and lack of video card for faster loading.
To shorten this whole thing(and make me consider deleting all of the above for simplicity and brevity), I say that I have(perhaps a bit too stubbornly) always been against these "gadgets" but have LOVED seeing gadget technology. It's a sort of morbid curiosity, to be honest. I know the technology for one (insert high-tech item) will be better than something being crammed into a smaller package with a(n) (insert some other high-tech item).
Honestly, I still laugh at the people with cell phones that have cameras, mp3 players, movie capabilities, and internet access. A cell phone should be used to communicate with other people. An mp3 player should be used for audio entertainment. A portable dvd player should be... well, a laptop, to be honest.
In conclusion, I agree with the article and the sentiments of the writer.
Good show!