This reads like something written word for word by IBM PR. It is also woefully misinformed. For instance: The goal . . . was to build a profitable business wit

This reads like something written word for word by IBM PR. It is also woefully misinformed. For instance: The goal . . . was to build a profitable business with a lot of recurring revenue, based on service contracts and software licenses. . . . Over the last 10 years, Apple has embraced much of the same strategy — in broad strokes. Even in broad strokes Apple's strategy is completely different. Apple makes money in selling vertically integrated products directly to consumers. The vast majority of Apple's income comes from when someone pays for the gadget (hardware) at purchase time. IBM relies heavily on support contracts and consulting work continued income, or as this journalist puts it, "recurring revenue." At I.B.M., the inspiration engine is more subtle and conceptual. In late 2008, Mr. Palmisano and his team settled on a theme: the deployment of scientific research and technology to tackle big challenges for business and society . . . . And the company has spent hundreds of millions of dollars on its “Smarter Planet” advertising campaign. A marketing campaign is a sign of IBMs "subtle and conceptual" inspiration engine? To me IBM's campaign represents the worst of contentless corporate advertising. No actual products named, no concrete facts, just feel-good "we're smart and serious" messaging. A lot like those wonderful full page ads in magazines by Shell or BP saying "don't worry, we really love renewable energy." Apple's advertising campaigns always center around actual products, what they do, what they stand for, why you want them. Once again, a far cry from "a series of conversations for a smarter planet."