The main issue in merging two different markets is always value conflict. Three kinds of value conflict, to be exact: values which conflict inherently between devices (direct value conflict), values which conflict only when the devices are merged (simultaneous value conflict), and values which conflict with the separate versions of the features (separate value conflict).
The former is easy enough to recognize. A good example is combining a screwdriver with a hammer. Screwdrivers are valued for being lightweight and easy to handle, while hammers are valued for being heavy and holding a lot of force. Putting the two together would result in direct value conflict.
The middle is a bit more obscure, but still exists. In fact, I listed one before: cell phones and game systems both rely on long-lasting batteries as a key value, but when merged, they have to share a battery and thus eat into each other's power, resulting in simultaneous value conflict.
The latter is the hardest to assess, and the reason why most hybrid products fail as a result. If a merged device is somehow less valuable than the original unmerged devices to the consumers, then people will favor the separate components to the combined unit even if no direct or simultaneous value conflict exists. An example of this is printer/scanners. There are no significant direct or simultaneous value conflicts between the two, yet a fair few users would prefer the units not be shared simply because they only want one or the other, not both. Even when the pricing is close to the same between models, there is a penchant for selecting the product that has the specific features the user is after, and disregarding the models with extras tacked on.
Sky Render - Sanity is for the weak.
