Indeed, emphasising its tricky nature, there have been many more failed attempts to converge multiple functions into a single device than successful examples.
Traditional histories of technology list the clock-radio as one of the few successes where a converged device has found universal success, thanks to the synergy gained by combining a timer with the ability to receive radio transmissions.
TVs with integrated VCRs, universal remote controls, fixed line video telephones and even the Swiss Army knife (at least when it has more than three blades) demonstrate how difficult it can be to create a successful converged device.
Indeed, as our kitchens fill up with specialist coffee-making machines and rice boilers, garlic presses and pasta rollers, the human appeal of the right tool for the job is clear to see.
All in one?
Of course, when it comes to the convergence of services - notably software services - convergence might seem to be the dominant trend.
Yet, even here, there are more market failures than successes.
The processing power and network functionality to handle email on the move wasn't technically difficult, but it was RIM that came with up CrackBerry, not Nokia, Ericsson, Palm or Microsoft; albeit also because of a single specialist feature - its excellent hard keyboard.
Similarly, when it comes to general purpose computing on the move, the brand everyone still wants is iPhone, not because it works better or had more features than rival smartphones, but because of marketing.
More than bulletpoints
It's a hard truth for technologists to stomach, but the fact is technology is accepted because it works (obviously it had to work), but to be successful, it also has to be desirable.
Combining 'working' and 'desirability' becomes much harder the converged your audience becomes and the more technology and features you try to pack in.
Just look at the fuss Apple has generated over the past 24 months, with Antennagate and Siri, or more recently scratched anodised backs and Maps.
An even better example is OnLive.
It 'converged the console' into a virtual service, but as it turned out, more people still wanted a real console than wanted a virtualised console.
The fact is that as we see higher levels of background convergence of hardware and software - in terms of physical components of phones and tablets and the ubiquity of the games, apps and services that run on them - the more divergence is actually introduced into the ecosystem.
This happens as manufacturers try to lock users into proprietary services - notably in terms of longterm content like music, books and films - and fragmenting (even deprecating) their own device families to maximise price point range and/or force upgrades.
On a more capitalist bent, just as there can be no universal device - as Apple is discovering - so there is no universal price point.
More is more
But so much for the hardware factor. No one should really expect physical devices to converge, as anyone who's recently carried two phones, a tablet and a laptop to a conference will attest.
The case of the convergence of mobile services (or lack of) is more significant.
With manufacturers looking to lock consumers into expensive hardware and upgrades, the services they offer won't be cross-platform.
This leaves an opportunity for thirdparties to fill the gap; in turn provide multiple - and similar - services.
The best current examples are social game networks.
Prior to Apple's Game Center, OpenFeint was the market leader, with a few developers using ngmoco's Plus+. It was as converged a situation as you get these days.
Post-Game Center, however, we also have PlayStation Mobile, Xbox Live, OpenFeint (now GREE Platform), Plus+ (now Mobage), and Amazon GameCircle while RIM's own version (based on Scoreloop) is cross platform - not to mention publisher-specific examples such as Gameloft LIVE, EA's Origin, Com2uS LIVE etc.
Make your own luck
Good luck building a community of friends across that selection of services.
It's particularly the case as it's clear usage patterns will be very different for these services depending on: the games that support them; the demographics of the players; where they are in the world; and what devices they are playing on.
Instead, what's much more likely to occur is that the most popular games will have their own concentrated - i.e. convergent - communities, while the divergent remainder fight for the scraps.
An unfortunate state for the losers, nevertheless it's the only way it can - and indeed should - be.
For like a monopoly, convergence is a temporary, and ultimately unstable, situation.
When a market is dominated by a single company, product, style or idea, innovation stagnates and quality suffers.
After all, Chairman Mao suits, black T-Model Fords and PlayStation were fine in their time and place, but you wouldn't want them still to be the only choice on offer.
