Laura, do you really believe by adding GPS functionality to the iPhone, it changes it so dramatically that the iPhone goes from being a convergent device to a divergent device?
As you’ve implied, the iPhone is the acid-test for the divergence theory you and Al Ries have lectured on for years. I admire the strong stance you took declaring the iPhone would fail when it was launched last year. The convergence theory you’ve lectured on says any device that combines distinct features like phone, music, camera, Internet, and video is doomed to fail.
In your books, lectures, essays, and blog posts you’ve chronicled the failures of convergent devices from all-in-one washer/dryers to all-in-one TV/VCR combo sets to the Hall Flying Car. And you were quick to proclaim, “The iPhone will do a lot of things but it will do nothing well. And that is why it is destined for failure."
The latest version of the iPhone adds faster Internet connections and global positioning features to its already application-rich features of phone, music, camera, Internet, and video. Sounds like the iPhone is just expanding its focus on convergence by adding G3 speeds and GPS functionality.
However, you are now saying the iPhone is a “totally new kind of device” in a new category of cellphones called “mobi-phones” and thus, “making the new iPhone about divergence.”
Huh?
Sounds to me like you are reversing course and changing your stance to fit the story that is being played out. That story being Apple is finding success with a convergent device. I ain’t disrespecting you Laura, just questioning you. Thanks for listening.
John:
Nice post - love the skewering!
TO'B
Posted by: Tom O'Brien | July 24, 2008 at 06:35 PM
Hmmm, couldn't agree more jm...!
Posted by: Rich...! | July 24, 2008 at 06:37 PM
Eh, maybe. I think that the thing that is being sold with the iphone is not convergence, but portabiliy. The day that they stick in a borderline useful camera is the day I get one, although HEAPCRM's iphone widget makes me think that it might be a decent idea to get one now.
Posted by: Genuine Chris Johnson | July 24, 2008 at 11:37 PM
The Ries's argument that convergence fails because the new product can't perform any one function better than a divergent product can has strong merit to it I believe. However, what if the iPhone CAN perform these functions better (which many believe it can)? It's possible that the iPhone can end up being a better mobile phone, a better MP3 Player (if not better than the iPod, then at least no worse), a better GPS, etc...
Every rule has an exception, so perhaps the iPhone is the exception to the Ries's divergence theory.
Posted by: Salam Kitmitto | July 25, 2008 at 10:17 AM
Here's the problem with presenting a theory as dogma: There is no universal rule for marketing. Occasionally a convergent device wins in the marketplace. Then the purveyor of the theory has to engage in branding gymnastics to stuff everything back into the dogma box.
Posted by: Jay Ehret | July 25, 2008 at 10:43 AM
Nice John. I was wondering when this position was going to come to bite Al and Laura. I have a world of respect for both of them but on this point, they've crossed a line trying to make a market positioning focus equate to product management mantra's. The issue never was about convergence, it's about solving problems that buyers have. The reason the iPhone is a hit is that it does ... specifically for millenials looking for a social networking device. Putting it in a phone is no more a bad idea than putting the Internet on a PC or a GPS and radio in a car. As people's needs migrate (specifically to become more mobile), it makes perfect sense to add capabilities to a product they use today.
What is a bad idea is adding capabilities just because you could, not because you should. I'm thinking Internet Refrigerator as a good example of covergence that's dumb because it didn't solve a problem anyone really had. What is also a bad idea is marketing something as having a 'bunch of capabilities that you might need someday'. I know that's where Al and Laura started on this path and on that point they are right. But when you extend that backward into rules for product development, it's starting from the wrong premise. The right premise is 'what problem are we trying to solve here and how can we create a world class experience that a specific group of buyers will love'!
Posted by: Phil Myers | July 25, 2008 at 11:21 AM
This is what happens when you use an unstructured, non-qualified case studies to prove your theories—and then try using these theories to project what will happen in most other cases. I appreciate the work that these positioning pioneers have done, but their tactics are now lacking. I have been burned by Ries/Trout theories before (http://logiclane.wordpress.com/2008/03/07/captain-jack-trout-and-the-old-guard/); never again.
Posted by: Russell Fisher | July 25, 2008 at 01:14 PM
Sounds like more of the half-baked rhetoric that the Ries's got hammered on over at The Daily Fix when they did the book club. the iPhone is the poster child for a converged device -- smart phone plus iPod. Adding GPS makes it more converged.
Convergence works. Divergence works. Dogma doesn't work.
Their theory doesn't hold up to even the lightest scrutiny.
Posted by: Stephen Denny | July 26, 2008 at 04:05 PM
You can always find exceptions, but I still think the convergence theory is, for the most part, worth respecting. You can see divergence everywhere: we still wear wrist watches, we still have separate washing machines and tumble driers, and we have stores that should only sell coffee not smoothies -- this in itself is support enough for the divergence theory. Perhaps the iPhone is indeed in a new category, albeit an unintended one.
Posted by: Gordon | July 29, 2008 at 09:59 AM
Very amusing discussion!
I admit I am a die-hard Al Ries fan. But I think her duaghter got it wrong here.
I just consider the iphone to be the first keyless cellphone with a tochscreen. That is what made it a hit.
Nothing about divergence-convergence theories here.
If you are the first to market a well designed touchscreen cellphone, then people will buy it.
That´s what apple did. (And they packed it full of other cool features and gadgets.)
Posted by: Jean-Paul Pangalos | August 07, 2008 at 01:58 PM
Just a touchscreen cellphone?
Uhm. Okay.
Posted by: Crawford | August 08, 2008 at 04:49 PM
It's one of the most amusing posts I've ever read on blogoshpere, really! Thanks =)
Posted by: Eren Kumcuoglu | August 21, 2008 at 03:19 AM