After the Red Hat mess I see many people saying IBM destroys everything they touch, but I can’t think of many examples of it. Can you tell me what else IBM has destroyed after acquiring it, or something good that they themselves developed and then ruined it with stupid corporate choices?
They are driven by quarterly earnings. No company can be successful long term when focusing on maximum profit in the next three months. So they buy a company at the top and ride the money wave until they aren’t profitable, then sell the name or IP to another company, lather, rinse, repeat.
They did this with PCs, Storage, big data, Healthcare tech, etc etc. Now they are squeezing the last money juice out the cloud acquisitions because the market is saturated with viable competitors. They will do the same with AI and Quantum Computing in the future.
It is a viable strategy if you are big enough. Broadcom, and before them, Symantec are other examples.
Profit > Innovation
Are you saying IBM isn’t innovative? Dude, they like, effectively invented computers. The stuff they are doing with power10, their big mainframe systems and quantum computers (which I’m not sure if you are aware, aren’t profitable at all). If anything I would say IBM is the company that is innovating, nobody else is getting nearly as far in the future as they are.
Yes, they’ve been innovative years ago, but I feel like they haven’t been releasing any disruptive tech for a while now
they like, effectively invented computers
Momentum on past cred is part of their schtick, for sure.
No, they have some really awesome stuff, and they were driving to the edge in a lot of interesting areas. I just mean that they lose sight of the possible whenever the grim reaper of quarterly profits comes around. When MBAs run the show instead of engineers. Same thing happened with the Boeing 737 MAX. In my opinion short sighted drive for profit will almost always win in today’s publicly traded spaces.
This is a very narrow opinion and obviously doesn’t cover every scenario at every company, or even all of IBM. Just one person’s opinion on the internet.
I was part of an acquisition, company was performing well against bigger players and IBM came in and threw a load of money at the owners.
Once we completed the transref of business we were paid massive retention bonuses, managers got company cars etc.
Not one sale of the product was made in the next 6 years and the business unit closed down. Previous CEO founded a competitor when his non compete clause ended and the customer base IBM had bought moved.
This is not an isolated occurrence.
IBM bought the Weather Underground. It had a set of developer APIs that allowed small-scale apps to make use of their data. As soon as IBM bought them the APIs were changed and replaced with a set priced to be affordable only to other mega-corporations.
It killed a tiny little free app I had built around it. The real irony is that I took a deep breath, looked around, and adapted the app to use the Dark Skies API instead. A few years later Apple bought Dark Skies and killed off its API too. {heavy sigh}
You’re probably already aware of this, but now Pirate Weather (http://pirateweather.net/en/latest/) offers a Dark Sky style API. I honestly don’t get amazing accuracy from it for my area, but it’s not awful.
I had heard of that, but was just too discouraged to try it at the time. Now that I’ve had some time to recover I should give it a look. Adapting my code to use it doesn’t look like it would take much effort.
Thanks!
IBM buys companies because it wants something the company has and it’s happy to throw away (sorry, divest) the bits it’s not interested in. That’s it. The people in the bought company, or their customers, may feel that the things that they valued and that made them precious have been destroyed, but IBM didn’t value them enough to preserve them.
Thank God they sold Thinkpad, then…
Tho I’m not so sure if Lenovo is doing any better…
You mean the Chinese company that put keyloggers into their firmware, said sorry we didn’t mean to when they were called out for it, but still didn’t remove it?
Yeah… I’m gonna go with not much better.
Exactly 🥹
OS/2 was poised to be a really awesome operating system. Bad decisions and poor marketing really eff’ed that up. We could have had a full GUI, multi-user OS for consumers like 10 good years earlier than we did and it likely would have curbed Microsoft’s monopoly.
Solidifying a far stronger IBM monopoly in the process
Have you ever used this thing called “Lotus Notes” before?
Oh dear God.
Sametime is equally horrendous.
That’s a name I’ve not heard in a long time…
Triggered!
I worked with someone who moved their entire workload into notes, email, spreadsheets, browsing, embedded sametime, you name it he used notes for it.
Didn’t IBM create the punchcard machines the nazis used to catalogue Jews? Genocide counts, right?
Yes, they did. And yes, it does.
I suspect that they’re a very slow-moving corporate culture and likely mostly interested in value extraction over a long term. It’s a general opposite of move-fast-and-break-stuff.
You don’t expect IBM to provide paradigm-breaking sexy new things, you expect them to build boring corporate stuff that you support for decades and gradually crystallizes because you can’t break specific use cases.
It takes a specific kind to get excited about that.
The whole MCA and PS/2 fiasco is probably at its heart them overplaying their hand on a business level. The PS/2s were cleverly designed machines and MCA was impressive for a 1987 design, but they fell flat because the business guys wanted to use it to rebottle the genie that Compaq released.
I’ve heard that OS/2 got hamstrung by IBM promising too much business-wise. They sold 286s with the promise it would run OS/2, but the 286 was a pretty bad platform to juggle DOS software and more modern multitasking on, so it was jankier and more incomplete than it needed to be. Even before the era of direct competition, OS/2 had a rep of being expensive and aekward.
I wonder if it would have fared better if the MS-IBM partnership had started 3 yesrs later and targeted the 386 from day 1.
The whole PS/2 & OS/2 fiasco is probably what pushed the once great IBM away from hardware and software production into managed services and consulting which is where they make their money now. They are a contract sales driven company. Quarterly sales targets & bonuses is a good way to motivate the sales team. The problem is that IBM concider everything other than sales an expense to be minimized. They do not invest. They market. “Watson” did not represent AI innovation. It was just a marketing tool.
Anecdotally, every interaction I or many friends had with IBM left a “is this the 90s” taste.
It feels super disorganized but it’s still a big corp, “simple” dev position hard require a degree (like, their system just wouldn’t let a friend submit their application because they didn’t press the checkmark lol) - usually it’s not a hard requirement in our local market. I’m still waiting 5 years later for the VP of the BU I was interviewing at to return from his vacation to “approve my hire” LOL (for all concerned I found work at a different company… But still amusing to think about that guy spending 5 years in vacation…).Just examples, but feels like there’s some internal process/management failures higher up the food chain. Their devs create pretty innovative things, then nothing is actually done with that lol.
fwiw i work with a bunch of former ibmers.
super super nice people who are crazy smart.
but think something in their brains got wired differently when they worked there - they just build all sorts of amazing stuff without thinking about the strategy for it. who will use it, in what scenarios, how will it be supported once interest surpasses cycles of the creator.
not all indicative of the companies history or current reputation but interesting to see at the micro level
Every large company have this aspect, but they usually have this group as part of research. These research projects are unbridled, with no concern for business. The group is measured by the number of patents they file. A separate group then picks through the research output and figure out how to monetize it.
Well, there are exceptions, but I can remember one…
They bought Red Hat, now that company software is going closed source.
It legally cannot be made closed source.
I guess it’s more: they going as closed source as they legally can.
IBM/Redhat only HAS to provide their source code to paying customers. That is what they are doing. They will also refuse to do business with entities that use the source to release the source or use it in a derivative distro.
This violates the spirit of open-source. IBM benefits from the work of thousands of programmers for free, but refuses to reciprocate. They are de facto close sourcing their code.
You can also bet of the fact that IBM will decrease their development of Redhat (more layoffs) over time as they emphasize short term profits.
https://www.redhat.com/en/blog/red-hats-commitment-open-source-response-gitcentosorg-changes
From that link,
Despite what’s currently being said about Red Hat, we make our hard work readily accessible to non-customers. Red Hat uses and will always use an open source development model. When we find a bug or write a feature, we contribute our code upstream. This benefits everyone in the community, not just Red Hat and our customers.
We don’t simply take upstream packages and rebuild them. At Red Hat, thousands of people spend their time writing code to enable new features, fixing bugs, integrating different packages and then supporting that work for a long time - something that our customers and partners need.
This is about the hours and late nights we spend backporting a patch to code that is now 5 to 10 years old or older; at any given time, we are supporting 3-4 major release streams, while applying patches and backports to all. Additionally, when we develop fixes for issues in RHEL, we don’t just apply them to RHEL - they are applied upstream first, to projects like Fedora, CentOS Stream or the kernel project itself, and we then backport them. Maintaining and supporting an operating system for 10 years is a Herculean task - there‘s enormous value in the work we do.
We will always send our code upstream and abide by the open source licenses our products use, which includes the GPL.
Linking redhat.com seems a little biased no?
Are you claiming that the facts, right out of the horses mouth, is biased? Are you trolling?
Linking redhat.com seems a little biased no?
No it isn’t.
Unfortunately by destroying every startup they touch. The squeeze the money out of absolutely everything while not investing in it.
The only people that can afford something of theirs and are dumb enough to buy it are fortune 500s.
deleted by creator
deleted by creator
Having used PC for a long time, I’d say… The PC 😁
MCA bus for instance
Ancient history.
