|WikiProject Technology||(Rated C-class)|
|WikiProject Computing / Networking||(Rated C-class, High-importance)|
|The content of Network convergence was merged into Technological convergence. That page now redirects here. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see ; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. (2011-02-23)|
|The content of Convergence (telecommunications) was merged into Technological convergence. That page now redirects here. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see ; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page. (2013-05-21)|
- 1 technological convergence
- 2 Quadruple Play
- 3 184.108.40.206 said
- 4 merge from Convergence in the media
- 5 Merge from Dual/Triple/Quadruple play
- 6 Evidence required for the disadvantages of media convergence
- 7 Black Box Fallacy
- 8 Merge from Convergence (telecommunications)
- 9 Open new page Media Convergence!
The title does not match the content. This could be called Convergence in telecommunication but is also talks about other type of technology. I beleive that Tecchnological Convergence is too broad to a solely article at all. With such a conceptual scope, this article should be limited to phylosopchical concepts. technology could be mentionned as example but not as a reference.
I am not a philosopher but a telecommunication architect. As such, would see fit to explain the differences between transmission convergence, application convergence, device convergence, financial convergence, media convergence, etc...
But all articles listed are too deep into each technology example and fails to explain the common ground. Beside all these thecnology having the word convergence in their title, is there any reasons to explain them all on the same pages ?
Folks, the key to the 'quadruple play' is the IMS framework defined between the 3GPP folks and CableLabs with PacketCable 2.0.
In the 1st part of the article: Media Convergence, The Internet. the quote from the MIT guy is incomplete or if it is not, something's missing afterwards.
There are many good examples of products and technologies that arose out of two or more seemingly different, unrelated technologies. Rather than reinvent each, the new inventor "stands on the shoulders" of her predecessors buy taking the tourch where they left off and converging them into something new and useful. Almost every modern convienience from the lightbulb to air travel owes it's roots to two or more unrelated areas of study that someone had the vision to converge. It would be interesting to list a few of these major inventions and their convergent technologies here. Now more than ever, our society is poised for more of the same. Our ideas are connected like never before, although using them legally and fairly might require more navigation for the convergent inventor. -- 16:20, 21 March 2006 220.127.116.11
merge from Convergence in the media
- Isn't this article more about technological convergence? I would expect an article titled "Convergence in the media" to discuss the trends of newspapers, TV stations and web sites to create news together, rather than the ability of a PlayStation to play an audio CD. This should be rewritten or deleted. -- 18.104.22.168 18 July 2005
- Did you see that there is an article about that Concentration of media ownership. For clarity I will add a link... -- user:Trainthh 12:25, 20 July 2005 (UTC)
- user:Vonkje proposed the merge the 23 September 2005
- Technological and media convergence actually define the same thing: convergence is the coming together of: media content (video, games, news, etc); computing; and telecommunications. This article (and probably the one on technological convergence) has completely missed the conceptual point. Media convergence is not simply the blending of two media - if that was so television should be listed as 'radio with pictures'. Dunno if I can be bothered fixing this but someone who can should consult Terry Flew's "New Media: An Introduction" (ISBN 0195550412). -- 16 March 2006 22.214.171.124
- I think that the current content of Convergence in the media should be merged here in Technological convergence and the page should redirect to Concentration of media ownership which is more pertinent today. --Marc Lacoste 08:05, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
- Concentration of media ownership and "media convergence" are two different things, though, and convergence isn't really discussed in the Concentration of media ownership article. "Media convergence" needs its own article, separate from the concentration of ownership and tech convergence articles. -- 27 December 2005 126.96.36.199
- There is a conceptual error here. Technological convergence refers to pipes only, it is content-agnostic; that is, it makes no difference what data or TV images are going through the pipes, or who owns them. Technological convergence refers to delivery services, not to content provision. The subjects should be separated, as mentioned by others. M. H. van Handel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk • contribs) 8 August 2006
Done --Marc Lacoste 08:57, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Merge from Dual/Triple/Quadruple play
- the content of those multiple play articles are often redundant and could be at better use under the umbrella of only one article. It should be easy to give each a title in the main article, and develop them in a separate article if they need it in the future. --Marc Lacoste 08:32, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
Done I've done it to see the result, except for Triple play, which isn't a stub. If someone don't like it, fee free to revert. --Marc Lacoste 09:47, 17 April 2006 (UTC)
Evidence required for the disadvantages of media convergence
"However, convergence can have its downside. Particularly in their initial forms, converged devices are frequently less functional and reliable than their component parts (e.g. a DVD may perform better on a traditional DVD player than on a games console). Further, as single devices address a wide spectrum of consumer needs, breakdowns and problems become more likely, and more disruptive to the consumer. The greater the degree of convergence in a device, the more vulnerable consumers are to the failure of that device and face more complex user-interfaces. With a multitool on your belt, you've always got a screwdriver and pliers, but they are never as good as separate tools."
I agree with the general theory but I think it should have references and be written in a more neutral manner. Increased complexity is bound to increase the likelihood of malfunction but not always. In my experience the most unreliable DVD players are the really cheap single purpose devices not games consoles. In my very limited experience with consoles, the user-interface seems overly simplified. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 23:06, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
Black Box Fallacy
I apologise, I'm a newcomer to editing Wikipedia, so please help me out here. My view of the topic was that as it was a theory held by numerous prominent media analysts, such as Henry Jenkins, it was not a "limited or personal" take on the subject. I think possibly more sources are needed, as undoubtedly there are enough out there to support this theory. Definitely, the format can be improved though, and that is why I need some help to make it an encyclopaedia entry rather than an 'essay'. FunkeyMunkey101 (talk) 12:48, 5 September 2008 (UTC)
Merge from Convergence (telecommunications)
Seems like both of these articles are talking primarily about convergence in telecommunications. Neither article is in great shape. If we combine them, we'll have at least one less flawed article on Wikipedia. --Kvng (talk) 01:53, 30 March 2011 (UTC)
- I am a student in a wiki writing class in UMass and i am writing on the page, Convergence (telecommunication). From my understanding technological convergence is only one way to see this huge topic called convergence. There are convergence cultures, and there are theories saying technology diverges and information converges. I don't think technological convergence will be good enough for the topic. I do not mind merging the two articles but the name of the page should be something more general such as Media convergence. P.S. I am going to produce much content on the subject in the distanced future for my writing class, please keep my opinion under consideration. Ktlin91 (talk) 23:49, 20 October 2011 (UTC)Ktlin91
- I have no objection to covering other types of convergence. My observation based on reading the content, not the titles, is that these two articles are covering the same narrow convergence topic. I'm also fine with narrow coverage. My objection is that we don't need two separate articles. --Kvng (talk) 02:20, 25 October 2011 (UTC)
Open new page Media Convergence!
move content from Technological convergence#Media to own page, and remove redirection from Media Convergence to Technological convergence#Media. As is largely agreed upon, Media Convergence is much more than the technological merger of distribution channels (see Technological convergence#Media itself.), and is also concerned with social and cultural shifts, rather than the technological implications. — 220.127.116.11 (talk) 18:02, 21 October 2012 (UTC)
Because media is a social enterprise (historically and currently), media convergence describes social and cultural shifts in media as a result of technology. For example, new media changes the role and status of old media, and users/producers/consumers perpetuate those shifts. I suggest that digital convergence should collapse into this article, and moreover, the article should be renamed "Convergence" with the addage "Convergence Culture" a la Henry Jenkins http://www.amazon.com/Convergence-Culture-Where-Media-Collide/dp/0814742955 Jacobwc (talk) 00:37, 19 November 2013 (UTC)