A divergent view of convergence

Click here to visit a guide to hundreds of financial links!

A divergent view of convergence

By Richard Morochove

First published December 4, 1997

The big money these days is betting on convergence, the coming together of diverse technologies. Two communications technologies that appear destined for the digital altar are computing on the Internet and broadcast television.

Just take a look at those promoting the nuptials. Microsoft purchased WebTV earlier this year and will roll it out in Canada next March. This service lets you watch TV and surf the Web. At last month's Fall Comdex, several companies showed PIP (picture in picture) monitors that let you keep an eye on a TV program while surfing the Web, or vice versa.

Chipmaker Intel is encouraging the adoption of Intercast technology that combines a TV signal with information on related Web sites.

Convergence of the Web and TV seems a done deal. After all we watch both on CRT's, so why not combine both viewing capabilities in one box? Besides, how could you go wrong following the path forged by the two biggest leaders in the PC industry?

Although the convergence of TV and Net surfing superficially makes sense and smart money is betting on it, I don't think it's going to happen. At least, not in the way the big boys think it will.

Do you have battles in your home over who controls the TV's remote channel changer? What will it be like when you have to decide if you'll surf one of thousand of Web channels or pick one of a few dozen on regular TV? Countless clicker conflicts!

Combo home theatre computers and televisions with big monitors are marketed by both Gateway and Compaq in the U.S., but sales haven't been impressive. Undoubtedly part of the reason lies in their sky-high price tags. But I also think people prefer using different machines and a one tube fits all approach won't work.

We view TV in quite a different way from surfing the Web. Watching television is a passive activity, where you sit and absorb the broadcast sounds and images. Web surfing, on the other hand, requires you to actively select which link to explore.

Although we view both on a tube, we'll sit within a meter of a 15-inch monitor when on the Web, but move back 3 or more meters from a 25-inch monitor while watching TV.

Talk about combining TV and Web watching in one box to save space and money reminds me of a decade ago, when personal computers first moved into offices in a big way. Computer vendors said it was so easy to look up information on the monitor, there would be little need for printed reports. Computer gurus predicted a paperless office.

Do I need to tell you how wrong they were? Just look at the enormous quantity of computer printers and supplies sold by Hewlett-Packard.

If the experts are just as right on the convergence front, I expect we'll have half a dozen or so monitors in the average home in 2007. Instead of tubes, we'll watch flat screen LCD monitors. There'll be a big one on the wall for television programs and smaller ones in the study and kitchen for general Web surfing and online shopping.

In response to my column on the cure for bad software, George Guerrette writes:

I take exception to your views on Apple. The most crucial point for Apple's survival is more people buying Apples. Sadly, there is little help from the press in this regard. A spiral is being created here by the press. For example, some of the "wholesale changes" in staff that you mentioned includes NeXT software staff being brought in to develop Rhapsody; a positive thing, wouldn't you say? Well, I guess you wouldn't.

Again, yes, Apple has done some stupid things to be sure. Buying out clone licensees does not instill confidence. Not releasing System 7 for the PC platform had to be the dumbest! Gosh, where would Windows be today if that had happened? The luckiest man around is Bill Gates, thanks to Apple's snobbish attitude and blind greed.

Reacting to the same column, Georg Hentsch writes:

I am a Mac programmer who has made and continues to make a great living by writing Mac software. Your slanderous comments about Apple are typical of PC-centric journalism.

Unlike Windows users, Mac users generally all upgrade and generally have no problems with their upgrades not to mention that they generally don't need new computers to run new OS releases. As a great example of this, consider that Apple switched processors from 68k to PPC with hardly any inconvenience to Mac users. This is typical of Apple's great engineering. I agree that their marketing leaves much to be desired but you might see this change with Jobs at the helm. CW

Richard Morochove, FCA, is a Toronto-based computer consultant.

Click here to read the latest computer news and views!

Visit the ComputerWatch Archive to see more columns

Post any questions or comments about this article to Computer Watch WriteBack.