|
In my junior year of college, I took a class from a mathematics
professor who was most likely a brilliant theoretician. Unfortunately,
that brilliance did not translate into his abilities as a teacher.
To this day, I remember him as the worst teacher in all my years
of formal education. As it quickly became apparent, not only had
he selected a text that was beyond the capabilities of everyone
in the class, but with each passing day he convincingly demonstrated
his own lack of ability to explain the material.
The culmination of this miserable year was the last few weeks that
we spent trying to learn how to prove that certain mathematical
series, in their limit, either converged or diverged. Now, these
were not the more familiar series that I later found useful in my
graduate engineering education. These were the kind that only a
dedicated mathematician could love. No matter what theorems I tried
to apply, I couldn't seem to come up with conclusive answers. On
the final written examination, I covered the pages mostly with good
intentions and was fortunate to escape the class with a mediocre
but passing grade.
The memory of this experience is so strong that whenever I hear
someone talk about convergence or divergence, I am immediately transported
back to this intensely frustrating and frankly miserable time. Given
this, I'm sure you won't be surprised if I tell you that I have
a strong reaction whenever I hear or read about the "convergence"
of computers and television, or the Internet and television. And
never having succeeded at proving which of those mathematical series
converged or diverged, I continue in my quest to arrive at an answer.
Perhaps, if I can't do those weird math series, at least I can propose
an answer to the convergence or divergence of electronic media.
For this analysis, I believe that I have "nature" on my side. And
it seems that nature likes diversity (i.e. divergence) rather than
combinations of dissimilar things (i.e. convergence). Therefore,
by inference we can perhaps show that we too are more likely to
appreciate divergence than convergence. The examples are numerous.
In nature, we proliferate species rather than have two different
ones come together. Of course, some go extinct, but then others
evolve to take their place. We don't have too many cats and dogs
getting together to make cat-dogs. Bluebirds and robins pretty well
keep to their own kind. Botanists and breeders sometimes work for
years to create combinations that will make plants more disease
resistant or animals that have superior capabilities. Even then
the result is usually a new subspecies rather than a convergence
of two distinctly different plant or animal types.
Are we too far afield in using biological processes as examples
for a discussion of technological convergence or divergence? After
all, it does not require a procreation process to create a new Web
TV or Internet appliance. But a look at some popular attempts to
combine technological functions seems to lead us to the same conclusion
already arrived at by "mother nature." For example, the many attempts
to combine cars and airplanes or cars and boats have only resulted
in vehicles that performed both functions poorly. Their value was
more in their novelty than in their functionality. Similar results
have been demonstrated time and again in trying to combine appliances
such washers and dryers, furniture items such as beds and sofas,
and houses with vehicles. Even the simplest of combinations -- such
as a television with a VCR -- has had only limited success.
Now, before you get all excited and call to tell me about the
sofa-bed industry, the recreational vehicle industry, the mobile
home industry, and the great houseboat and clock radio that you
own, let me state that I am not suggesting that these do not exist
as viable products. What I am suggesting is that they have in no
way replaced the products that provide these functions in their
pure forms. In the same way that the proverbial Swiss army knife
can be a useful device in special circumstances, while not replacing
the tools that perform each of these functions, a sofa-bed is useful
in a one room apartment or a guest room, a recreational vehicle
is great for those who wish to spend their retirement years traveling
around the country, and the houseboat is great if you want to be
intimate with a body of water. However, for most of us, these are
not the preferred ways of performing the functions for which we
buy sofas, beds, houses, and cars. The mainstream products thrive
while the specialty products serve a much smaller -- although still
important -- segment of the market.
So, when I am told of the plans by some companies to bring about
the convergence of television and the Internet, and how we will
all be glued to our TV sets doing e-mail, interactive shopping,
and searching for information, I tend to be a skeptic. While I can
see a few people doing it, for most of us I don't think it will
be that interesting.
First there is a practical viewability problem. Sitting in front
of a computer to watch television doesn't seem all that comfortable.
On the other hand, reading e-mails from two or three meters distance
-- the typical television watching position -- seems even more difficult.
At best, I can read a dozen lines of text on my television from
this distance. If I must move closer, then I can just as easily
go sit in front of my computer. Furthermore, given that watching
television is an activity that often involves more than one person,
will this social pattern carry over to reading e-mails or searching
Internet sites? Not very likely.
Finally, when I am watching television, I am usually looking for
a way to forget about work-related tasks. The last thing I want
is for the latest e-mail to show up on my television set. Even the
possibility that I could do this makes me want to run away to some
deserted island.
The personal computer has already become much like the Swiss army
knife. It does many things -- but perhaps not as well as a specialized
device could do them. If I want to take care of my e-mails, I want
to have instant access, to be able to do it from anywhere and anytime,
and I want a device that is light-weight and easy to take on my
travels. If I am in my car, I want a navigation device that will
tell me how to get to a particular location. If I wish to put my
presentation material on a computer, it should not take me five
minutes to bring up my presentation while my audience examines the
contents of my files.
Desktop and laptop computers have been great products and will
continue to serve us with their broad-ranging capabilities. However,
I believe there is great opportunity for products that do specialized
functions exceedingly well. Many of these products will be highly
portable and will need displays that are efficient and bright. Others
will be used in multiple locations in homes and offices and will
need low-cost displays that still provide color and excellent resolution.
Yet others will be used in conference settings and will need to
display clear images on large screens with readability in normal
roomlight.
Divergence is going to be great for those of us in the display
industry. It will allow us to be creative in bringing many new display
technologies to market. It will demand that we work closely with
product designers and that we understand the specialized needs of
our customers. The only temporary detractors from this inevitable
trend will be the few dominant companies that would prefer to retain
control over the Information Society with their limited offerings
of Swiss-Army-knife-like products.
Since I have always liked lots of choices, I am an enthusiastic
proponent of these opportunities and am looking forward to helping
bring about some of this diversity.
Should you wish to provide some of your own -- perhaps divergent
-- thoughts you may reach me by e-mail at
Email
or at president@sid.org,
by telephone at 425-557-8850, by FAX at 425-557-8983 or by the pre-divergent
method known at the US mail at 22513 SE 47th Place, Sammamish, WA 98075. Close this window |