Was clicking aimlessly today and came across this post - Convergence: A Great Word to Hate by Danc who is a game, product, and grpahics designer. Danc talked about the myth of “convergence” as a product strategy and design philosophy. In short, he argues that

A company strategy based on convergence is often that of the lazy corporate strategist who attempts to avoid the radical cultural shifts required by real innovation by playing a childish game of mixing and matching existing product lines.

(Which reminded me of room full of MBA’s doing conjoint & regression analysis on product feature to come up with the “ultimate” product but in the process failing to realize trade-off and interactions of the various features)

As i read through the post I realized that we, the web 2.0 crowd, is facing similar issues as the consumer electronics industry. I.E. CONVERGENCE = MASHUP . . . or atleast its a good enough analogy for us to learn from. Given that CE companies have been struggling with “convergence” for what seemed like eternity, we can learn much from their mistakes. (Maps =cool, social bookmarks = cool, QED: Maps+ social bookmarks = Cool^2!!!!!).

Its better to read it yourself, but I took the liberty of “Control-H ing” convergence with mashup for a portion of the post to prove my point. . . (also the part on how platforms is different from products/applications is applicable for web/software based platforms too) . . . really the more things are different the more they are the same

Issue #1: Confusing benefit statement
Instead of a single clear benefit statement, consumers are bombarded with a dozen half-baked benefit statements. You need to be able to sum up your entire value proposition in a short sentence.

Look at the PSP’s promise to the customer “Experience entertainment without boundaries.” That, my fine lady friends, is vague and meaningless marketing speak that fails to describe any sort of concrete benefit. Check out the value statements of some successful non-mashup products:
• iPod: 5000 songs in your pocket.

• Google: Find anything on the web easily and quickly.

• Nintendogs: Own a cute dog (even if you can’t own a real one)

• Gmail: Friendly webmail that never forces you to delete your messages.

• Tivo: TV without the crap. (Admittedly, Tivo’s biggest problem is that they aren’t allowed to promote this as a value proposition without irritating the advertisers)
Issue #2: Compromised solution that competes poorly against single purpose solutions:
Look at the classic VCR TV. You end up with a crappy TV and a crappy VCR glued together by a weakened user interface. Many consumers would rather buy a quality TV that gives them those warm post-purchase fuzzies. The quality of the individual buying experience matters.

The complexity that attends mashup is typically the kiss of death. A poll the Consumer Electronics Association found 87% said ease of use is the most important feature for users when they are purchasing new technologies.

Issue #3: Higher cost of entry
A multi-function device forces you to buy a bundle. What if a VCR TV costs $300 and you only have $200? By increasing the entry point, you limit your audience. Often consumers will buy the cheaper single component and then save up to get the secondary or tertiary elements of the bundle.
Issue #4: Single point of failure
When one piece fails, the whole thing fails. The perceived risk of system failure is much higher for multi-function devices. This is quoted as a typical issue, but it sounds a bit academic relative to how consumers typically purchase.

The failed logic of mashup focused product design
The traditional product design logic of a company focused on mashup is deeply flawed.
• Both product A and Product B are valuable to consumers.

• If we combine product A and Product B into a combined Product C, we will end up with a product that is twice as valuable to consumers.

• Other companies aren’t selling converged devices so our super product will have a unique competitive advantage that will help us dominate the market.
Customer value however is not an additive property in consumer products. For all the reasons listed above, a converged product will often have dramatically less value than its individual parts.

A company strategy based on mashup is often that of the lazy corporate strategist who attempts to avoid the radical cultural shifts required by real innovation by playing a childish game of mixing and matching existing product lines.

Product successes are not based on mashup
I can only assume the myth of mashup as a product strategy came about when someone saw the occasional success of a mashup device and mistakenly assumed that the chimeric nature of the device was indeed the source of the product’s sales mojo. Let’s look at a couple mashup devices and dissect the real reason why they were successful.

The classic one is the “clock radio” combo. Though this is certainly a ‘mashup device’, the ultimate driver of adoption was a simple, easily articulated use case: “Wake up to music.” Customer benefit drives adoption.

I find camera phones to be another interesting example of customer benefit being the real driver of adoption, not mashup. At first glance the combination of cameras and phones seems to validate the logic of mashup. Cameras are successful and cell phones are successful. And what do you know; camera phones are successful as well!

Yet something curious occurs here. The marketing people at phone companies are running around frantically trying to come up with ‘mashup’ products and services that take advantage of this obvious ‘camera-cell phone synergy’. This task ends up being really quite difficult. Why? Because the benefit of having a camera phone has very little to do with synergy.

The reality is that the benefit of a camera phone is really quite simple: “Always having a camera with you helps you take better pictures.” Any professional photographer will tell you that the real trick to taking great photos is having a camera with you when the right moment occurs. By stashing a camera in an item that is on your body 99% of the time, you increase the value of the camera.

By this argument, if the technologists had managed to figure out how to pack a camera into a standard keychain (and people were constantly encouraged to upgrade their keychains), the “camera keychain” would have been nearly as successful. The customer value is what matters. The fact that the value takes place in a mashup device is mostly random happenstance.

and the conclusion . . .

And so end my meandering thoughts on the topic of mashup. The important takeaways:
• A product design strategy relies on a focused product targeted at a strong user need.

• A platform strategy relies on creating a broad and flexible foundation that accelerates the development of successful products. Where products are about fulfillment of needs, platforms are always about potential.

• The cultural DNA required to pursue each strategy is very different. Product design involves making hard choices for the customer. Platform design involves throwing in the kitchen sink for the developer.

• Product design requires a strong centralized system of decision making. This creates amazing successes, but limits the scalability of the platform.

• A platform focus creates a business model that scales impressively based off the contribution of numerous 3rd party developers. The real trick is getting it off the ground in the first place since the initial value proposition is mere fluff without products to back it up.