4 ms·

I work for IBM as a Developer Advocate, though my opinions here are my own. One of my goals as a Developer Advocate is to represent the shift in buying power fr

I work for IBM as a Developer Advocate, though my opinions here are my own. One of my goals as a Developer Advocate is to represent the shift in buying power from "non-technical management" (as you described it) to individual developers and other technical staff. If those who have to use or have to integrate with the software are a part of the decision making process, then I believe that this will result in better quality software. IBM is a very large company, with many different offerings. However, I think you'll see this shift towards a developer-focused mindset happening more-and-more within IBM over the next few years.

sumoboy 9y ago
Non-technicals for most corporations will always make the buying decisions because it's about $$$. There is IBM's fundamental problem, "next few years" which means we're guessing today and guessing tomorrow.
squeaky-clean 9y ago
This message has just as little substance as the other IBM employee's comment. Care to share any real examples of what > However, I think you'll see this shift towards a developer-focused mindset happening more-and-more within IBM over the next few years. means? In a discussion about not trusting IBM's marketing, you can't simply say "I hear you and it will get better, trust me."
- pm90 9y ago
  What exactly do you expect him to say? Gimme a break. I don't work in the same role so I only know things from a 10,000 ft view. But a lot of orgs that IBM works with have inane bureaucratic structures with their in house devs pretty much at the bottom of the food chain, or in an "IT department". All decisions on using tech tools are made by "higher ups" a lot of whom have 0 technical background. We're trying to change this culture to one where devs get to make those decisions AFAIK. Disclosure: IBM dev, but not a Developer Advocate.
  - sumoboy 9y ago
    Nothing, it's a corporate identity problem. IBM has alot of organizations and many have good people who advocate developer tools and build products. Then you have the dark side with marketing and global services, where promises are never met and costs are beyond. Someone at the top made the decision the choose IBM, right or wrong, technical or not, they chose. I've been on both sides, and yeah 6 years in IBM global services watching the wheels spin. I've had technical decisions yanked from under me because my CTO was convinced by IBM marketing it was wrong after they failed proof of concepts. Companies have too many choices to build tech and as a developer, advocate or whatever you know there is always a better path. Especially without an IBM product. IBM was always unique, could sell you sfw, hdw, hosting, resources, and finance the whole thing. Some business as leaders never really adapt to change because management is stupid (blockbuster, radio shack, blackberry, etc.). IBM had so many chances to compete with Amazon and they failed. Watson is no more than a deflection in the marketplace that masks the real problems from within.
  - squeaky-clean 9y ago
    > What exactly do you expect him to say? Gimme a break. If you can't provide any useful comments, then nothing. What they're saying contributes absolutely nothing to the conversation. Maybe say you'll stop selling non-existent features to executives for starters? I don't appreciate HN becoming an advertising ground to name-drop IBM without any real talking points, please provide some sort of real discussion. > We're trying to change this culture to one where devs get to make those decisions AFAIK. Ok, but again how? Or I guess in other words, I don't believe you.
- bradley-holt 9y ago
  It's not really up to IBM whether or not this shift towards more developer influence happens. IBM can either embrace this shift and benefit from it, or it can reject it and pretend it's not happening. Personally, I hope that IBM continues to accept and embrace this shift (which I am seeing many indications of). I hope that IBM continues to become more-and-more relevant to developers, but the proof is in the pudding.

sumoboy 9y ago

Non-technicals for most corporations will always make the buying decisions because it's about $$$. There is IBM's fundamental problem, "next few years" which means we're guessing today and guessing tomorrow.

squeaky-clean 9y ago

This message has just as little substance as the other IBM employee's comment. Care to share any real examples of what > However, I think you'll see this shift towards a developer-focused mindset happening more-and-more within IBM over the next few years. means? In a discussion about not trusting IBM's marketing, you can't simply say "I hear you and it will get better, trust me."

pm90 9y ago
What exactly do you expect him to say? Gimme a break. I don't work in the same role so I only know things from a 10,000 ft view. But a lot of orgs that IBM works with have inane bureaucratic structures with their in house devs pretty much at the bottom of the food chain, or in an "IT department". All decisions on using tech tools are made by "higher ups" a lot of whom have 0 technical background. We're trying to change this culture to one where devs get to make those decisions AFAIK. Disclosure: IBM dev, but not a Developer Advocate.
- sumoboy 9y ago
  Nothing, it's a corporate identity problem. IBM has alot of organizations and many have good people who advocate developer tools and build products. Then you have the dark side with marketing and global services, where promises are never met and costs are beyond. Someone at the top made the decision the choose IBM, right or wrong, technical or not, they chose. I've been on both sides, and yeah 6 years in IBM global services watching the wheels spin. I've had technical decisions yanked from under me because my CTO was convinced by IBM marketing it was wrong after they failed proof of concepts. Companies have too many choices to build tech and as a developer, advocate or whatever you know there is always a better path. Especially without an IBM product. IBM was always unique, could sell you sfw, hdw, hosting, resources, and finance the whole thing. Some business as leaders never really adapt to change because management is stupid (blockbuster, radio shack, blackberry, etc.). IBM had so many chances to compete with Amazon and they failed. Watson is no more than a deflection in the marketplace that masks the real problems from within.
- squeaky-clean 9y ago
  > What exactly do you expect him to say? Gimme a break. If you can't provide any useful comments, then nothing. What they're saying contributes absolutely nothing to the conversation. Maybe say you'll stop selling non-existent features to executives for starters? I don't appreciate HN becoming an advertising ground to name-drop IBM without any real talking points, please provide some sort of real discussion. > We're trying to change this culture to one where devs get to make those decisions AFAIK. Ok, but again how? Or I guess in other words, I don't believe you.
bradley-holt 9y ago
It's not really up to IBM whether or not this shift towards more developer influence happens. IBM can either embrace this shift and benefit from it, or it can reject it and pretend it's not happening. Personally, I hope that IBM continues to accept and embrace this shift (which I am seeing many indications of). I hope that IBM continues to become more-and-more relevant to developers, but the proof is in the pudding.