Hacker Read top | best | new | newcomments | leaders | about | bookmarklet login

I really don't know where you get your information from but this is demonstrably wrong IBM GBS and GTS still ploy hundred of thousands of people.


sort by: page size:

You're absolutley right about GTS, but it's clear that the services offerings from IBM aren't what top level commenter here is praising.

They are lots of IBM people. But surely not?!

As far as anyone can tell, dead wrong, but then there are still headlines about "massive worldwide layoffs." Not that 5000 is a small number, but IBM is a large company.

IBM has been wrong about these types of things many times in the past.

Do you have any sources that elaborate on your claims of IBM being misleading?

IBM still exists?

Are you referring to "the IBM"? The company with a Market Cap of $150 billion, larger than Google, Apple, Cisco and every other IT company except Microsoft? There's a big gap between what is true on the web and what is true in reality. IBM is very much alive and kicking, still building mainframes and whatnot.

"IBM hasn’t dominated the tech industry since the early 1980s. Most founders today weren’t even born when the last antitrust case was opened into it. The share price is up 9x since then, and IBM shipped its highest-ever volume of mainframe computing capacity in…. 2020!"[1]

Never played around with one. But it must be working so reliably well in some specific field ( I am guessing Accounting and Finance ) that those end users, not engineers or IT, but actual people using the system dont want it to be replaced, only upgraded.

[1] https://twitter.com/benedictevans/status/1408469812318195716


> even at peak IBM it was an office name, not a household name.

This is not true.


Yeah I was referring IBM Global Services.

And my intention not to bash IBM or even IGS, but describe WHY some, not just IGS but many others - mega-projects blow up.

My fault for not making that clear. I’d edit the post but I can’t now. Their technology LOBs I’m sure are a different story.


As an IBM Managing Consultant I would say don't trust those numbers.

> They no longer actually produce anything

This is not true. IBM produces a ton of software (spanning a range from terrible to excellent, quality-wise). This is where much of their profit comes from now. They still produce a bunch of hardware, mostly at the higher (and legacy) end.


This accusation has been apparent inside IBM since the early '90s.

Is that still true, post-IBM?

ex-IBMer here, product side: GTS sometimes had better private pricing and incentives for products from competitors that other business units couldn't match due to internal pricing policies.

Now try explaining to the customer why IBM is recommending an IBM's competitor while IBM is also offering the same product with a better price directly to the customer. It doesn't make sense at all.

Consider two service-focused business units (GTS and GBS) that sometimes are complementary but mostly adversarial and it is chaos for the customer.

Spinning-off GTS (and I dare say, GBS too) is better for the customer and for the product business units.


IBM is not a live entity it is composed of people.

They are far more of a services and support company than a tech company these days. Their current tech is mostly used by their services teams to implement solutions.

https://www.statista.com/statistics/274823/ibms-global-reven...


I am not sure how accurate your history of IBM is since I myself am not an expert.

I agree with your last 2 statements completely though.


Really?

I wonder how many people's lives have been made better by technologies created, sold, and serviced by IBM.

next

Legal | privacy