4 ms·

I was surprised by some companies too, until I worked outside of tech. The whole rest of the universe needs software too. Most companies are grossly incompeten

I was surprised by some companies too, until I worked outside of tech. The whole rest of the universe needs software too. Most companies are grossly incompetent to develop it themselves. Most are things that SWEs of the type which visit HN would never, ever want to work on. IBM does that adequately well. That's "services." If I need a tool built which will manage workflow at a management consulting firm, a custom tool for managing cases at a law firm, or some custom supply chain kludge -- the 99% of other "boring" software -- and I happen to know nothing about technology, who do I turn to? IBM isn't a bad choice. It's a major step up from Indian firms in terms of both price and quality. It has significant in-house technology to leverage. It's a safe choice. It will usually do better than in-house IT. I recently evaluated the business of a company which builds ships. They developed software in-house with an IT staff who weren't qualified to tie their own shoelaces. They had huge military contracts. They didn't subcontract to IBM, but it wouldn't have been a bad choice.

Aeolun 5y ago
Honestly, I’m not sure IBM is a step up from the Indian firms. It’s certainly more expensive (like, ridiculously so) for not much more quality, if any.
- treis 5y ago
  IBM is basically an Indian firm these days
  - scrubs 5y ago
    Is it? Really? No. In fact it's not. Name one Indian company that ever reached 1/10th of what ibm had so that it's a candidate for seeing it on the way down. A serious insult because it'd be much more true would be to look at it's OD, culture and demise since Gerstner. Gerstner wasn't happy with a lot of IBM slop, paper pushers, and corporate BS either. That'd keep it on track rather than spurious comparisons. Gerstner layed of somewhere around 20% of work force, sold off tons of ibm art, real estate etc because IBM was lost ... And losing money. That says something. Spurious comparisons don't. Labeling IBM bad because it out sources to India is a vieled insult to indians and it's culture I guess. If that's the position -- not mine --- have the galiteantry and courage to just say so. I'm reminded of the Futurama line: do you idiots where you're from? Nobody nowhere can say no to that. American culture, OD, and common sense when it's not losing money, playing golf, splashing around shareholder cash on art or tieing up innovation in BS (all of which IBM did pre Gerstner and was called out for) expects problems fixed, brings out the best in all comers, and expects comers to be value add. Thosr that cant play that game are out. Regrettably this has one dark corner. Management isnt so good at overseeing itself. So in really bad situations they are good at shifting blame. Well nobody said it'd be easy. Let's start by not gossiping however.
    - relaxing 5y ago
      IBM itself has large divisions in Southeast Asia that function basically the same as Indian IT firms.
    - masalachai 5y ago
      This assumes that IBM's core business is the same as their Services business. I doubt they have any overlap. They got onto the bandwagon after seeing how successful some of the early Indian services companies were (in terms of revenue) such as Infosys, Wipro, and TCS. I would put the IT services business of Accenture, Cap Gemini, and IBM in the same bucket as the rest of the Indian firms.
    - vidarh 5y ago
      > Name one Indian company that ever reached 1/10th of what ibm had so that it's a candidate for seeing it on the way down. I'm not sure what your point is here, but based on Forbes 2000 for 2020 via Wikipedia [1], by market cap Tata Consultancy Services and Reliance are both larger than IBM. Both have grown faster than IBM since 2020. In terms of companies overall a number of other Indian companies are larger than IBM. If you look at infotech alone, Tata Consultancy Services is the one bigger than IBM, and Infosys (>50% of IBM market cap), HCL Technologies and Wipro are all larger than 1/10th of IBM. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_companies_in_India https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_companies_in_I...
      - scrubs 5y ago
        2020? Big deal. IBM has been around for serious time. Like I said show me an Indian company that was a tech giant for analysis on the way down. No doubt IBM has got work to do. But tata ain't no ibm. Furthermore my take stands up for Indian know how not crapping on it as others have done here. It's just that indian companies nowhere near have ibm corporate legacy. As for ibm: it wouldn't kill you to try to innovate again not react and buy innovation even if Watson was a bust
        vidarh 5y ago
        > IBM has been around for serious time. Tata is nearly half a century older than IBM. IBM is older than the TCS subsidiary, sure - TCS is "only" 54 years old. But I have no idea why that matters to your argument as it's still not clear to me why you were making the comparison. That said, IBM does today have more employees in India than in the US, and IBMs current CEO is Indian-American, born in India and educated in part at an IIT so I can see why some would describe it that way. To me at least there's no value judgement - positive or negative - attached to that. It seems like you took offence at the comparison of IBM to an Indian company, and I can see why you'd think so in context, but I don't see why that justifies downplaying the success of companies like TCS. > Like I said show me an Indian company that was a tech giant for analysis on the way down. I still have no idea what you intend this to mean. TCS is a tech giant. It's the largest IT service company in the world. As for Tata being no IBM, you're right, Tata Group is older and several times the size of IBM. The Tata Consultancy Services subsidiary alone is larger than IBM, and Tata as a whole employs about twice as many people as IBM, most in TCS. IBMs original business was thematically closer to what they still do today, I guess, but only marginally.
  - aquaticsunset 5y ago
    Rational comes to mind
shakna 5y ago
Wasn't most of that spun out into Kyndryl last year? [0] [0] https://newsroom.ibm.com/2021-11-03-IBM-Completes-the-Separation-of-Kyndryl https://newsroom.ibm.com/2021-11-03-IBM-Completes-the-Separa...
theduder99 5y ago
https://www.zdnet.com/article/ibm-now-has-more-workers-in-india-than-in-america-reprise/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/ibm-now-has-more-workers-in-in...
deleted 5y ago
[deleted]
didip 5y ago
> It's a major step up from Indian firms in terms of both price and quality. Will it be? Don't they outsource a lot of their subcomponents to Indian firms?
- blip54321 5y ago
  There is a world of difference between a US ship building company outsourcing to India and a US tech firm intermediating that transaction: - A US intermediator can know the climate in India and navigate the cultural differences because they do this day in day out. - A US tech company can properly vet whom they're subcontracting to because they have engineers in-house - A US tech company will have a contract in US jurisdiction. If there is e.g. a data leak, there is liability through US courts. A step down from that, a US company can have US-based oversight and escalation mechanisms - Social networks and relationships matter too. If you're working with Bob from the golf course, and his company messes up, you'll see Bob again next month at the golf course and chew him out. ... and so on. I'm not suggesting you or I (personally) should subcontract through IBM, but for a US-based non-tech firm, it can make a lot of sense. To flip this around, whom would you rather hire to do your accounting (presuming you're not an accountant and know nothing about accounting): - A US company which outsources to India - A random company in India I would go for the former, since I know there would be liability if they messed up, and they'd make sure the US tax code was properly complied with. There's nothing wrong with the latter, but I'd have no way to vet them, and if they messed up, no recourse.
ab_testing 5y ago
> IBM isn't a bad choice. It's a major step up from Indian firms in terms of both price and quality. It has significant in-house technology to leverage. It's a safe choice. It will usually do better than in-house IT. Having been there, I can say that IBM is no different than the other Indian tech firms like Infosys, Wipro, HCL and other. Infact, there is a rotating door of employees among IBM and other Indian firms. 1. Since the last 5 years, IBM has more employees in India than in the US or any other country [1] 2. Secondly IBM pays more that the Indian companies in India to poach employees but shortchange their US counterparts. [2] Infact, the only difference between IBM and other firms is that the initial sales procoess is handled by American counterparts. Once the sales piece is done and the actual project starts, it is replaced by the offshore team. [1] https://www.zdnet.com/article/ibm-now-has-more-workers-in-india-than-in-america-reprise/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/ibm-now-has-more-workers-in-in... [2] https://www.postbulletin.com/opinion/ibm-to-give-raises-to-india-employees-but-while-holding-back-in-u-s https://www.postbulletin.com/opinion/ibm-to-give-raises-to-i...
yardie 5y ago
> IBM isn't a bad choice. It's a major step up from Indian firms in terms of both price and quality. Oh, my sweet child. You might be surprised to learn that IBM and those SWE boiler rooms like WiPro are basically the same.

Aeolun 5y ago

Honestly, I’m not sure IBM is a step up from the Indian firms. It’s certainly more expensive (like, ridiculously so) for not much more quality, if any.

treis 5y ago
IBM is basically an Indian firm these days
- scrubs 5y ago
  Is it? Really? No. In fact it's not. Name one Indian company that ever reached 1/10th of what ibm had so that it's a candidate for seeing it on the way down. A serious insult because it'd be much more true would be to look at it's OD, culture and demise since Gerstner. Gerstner wasn't happy with a lot of IBM slop, paper pushers, and corporate BS either. That'd keep it on track rather than spurious comparisons. Gerstner layed of somewhere around 20% of work force, sold off tons of ibm art, real estate etc because IBM was lost ... And losing money. That says something. Spurious comparisons don't. Labeling IBM bad because it out sources to India is a vieled insult to indians and it's culture I guess. If that's the position -- not mine --- have the galiteantry and courage to just say so. I'm reminded of the Futurama line: do you idiots where you're from? Nobody nowhere can say no to that. American culture, OD, and common sense when it's not losing money, playing golf, splashing around shareholder cash on art or tieing up innovation in BS (all of which IBM did pre Gerstner and was called out for) expects problems fixed, brings out the best in all comers, and expects comers to be value add. Thosr that cant play that game are out. Regrettably this has one dark corner. Management isnt so good at overseeing itself. So in really bad situations they are good at shifting blame. Well nobody said it'd be easy. Let's start by not gossiping however.
  - relaxing 5y ago
    IBM itself has large divisions in Southeast Asia that function basically the same as Indian IT firms.
  - masalachai 5y ago
    This assumes that IBM's core business is the same as their Services business. I doubt they have any overlap. They got onto the bandwagon after seeing how successful some of the early Indian services companies were (in terms of revenue) such as Infosys, Wipro, and TCS. I would put the IT services business of Accenture, Cap Gemini, and IBM in the same bucket as the rest of the Indian firms.
  - vidarh 5y ago
    > Name one Indian company that ever reached 1/10th of what ibm had so that it's a candidate for seeing it on the way down. I'm not sure what your point is here, but based on Forbes 2000 for 2020 via Wikipedia [1], by market cap Tata Consultancy Services and Reliance are both larger than IBM. Both have grown faster than IBM since 2020. In terms of companies overall a number of other Indian companies are larger than IBM. If you look at infotech alone, Tata Consultancy Services is the one bigger than IBM, and Infosys (>50% of IBM market cap), HCL Technologies and Wipro are all larger than 1/10th of IBM. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_companies_in_India https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_largest_companies_in_I...
    - scrubs 5y ago
      2020? Big deal. IBM has been around for serious time. Like I said show me an Indian company that was a tech giant for analysis on the way down. No doubt IBM has got work to do. But tata ain't no ibm. Furthermore my take stands up for Indian know how not crapping on it as others have done here. It's just that indian companies nowhere near have ibm corporate legacy. As for ibm: it wouldn't kill you to try to innovate again not react and buy innovation even if Watson was a bust
      - vidarh 5y ago
        > IBM has been around for serious time. Tata is nearly half a century older than IBM. IBM is older than the TCS subsidiary, sure - TCS is "only" 54 years old. But I have no idea why that matters to your argument as it's still not clear to me why you were making the comparison. That said, IBM does today have more employees in India than in the US, and IBMs current CEO is Indian-American, born in India and educated in part at an IIT so I can see why some would describe it that way. To me at least there's no value judgement - positive or negative - attached to that. It seems like you took offence at the comparison of IBM to an Indian company, and I can see why you'd think so in context, but I don't see why that justifies downplaying the success of companies like TCS. > Like I said show me an Indian company that was a tech giant for analysis on the way down. I still have no idea what you intend this to mean. TCS is a tech giant. It's the largest IT service company in the world. As for Tata being no IBM, you're right, Tata Group is older and several times the size of IBM. The Tata Consultancy Services subsidiary alone is larger than IBM, and Tata as a whole employs about twice as many people as IBM, most in TCS. IBMs original business was thematically closer to what they still do today, I guess, but only marginally.
- aquaticsunset 5y ago
  Rational comes to mind

shakna 5y ago

Wasn't most of that spun out into Kyndryl last year? [0] [0] https://newsroom.ibm.com/2021-11-03-IBM-Completes-the-Separation-of-Kyndryl https://newsroom.ibm.com/2021-11-03-IBM-Completes-the-Separa...

theduder99 5y ago

https://www.zdnet.com/article/ibm-now-has-more-workers-in-india-than-in-america-reprise/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/ibm-now-has-more-workers-in-in...

deleted 5y ago

[deleted]

didip 5y ago

> It's a major step up from Indian firms in terms of both price and quality. Will it be? Don't they outsource a lot of their subcomponents to Indian firms?

blip54321 5y ago
There is a world of difference between a US ship building company outsourcing to India and a US tech firm intermediating that transaction: - A US intermediator can know the climate in India and navigate the cultural differences because they do this day in day out. - A US tech company can properly vet whom they're subcontracting to because they have engineers in-house - A US tech company will have a contract in US jurisdiction. If there is e.g. a data leak, there is liability through US courts. A step down from that, a US company can have US-based oversight and escalation mechanisms - Social networks and relationships matter too. If you're working with Bob from the golf course, and his company messes up, you'll see Bob again next month at the golf course and chew him out. ... and so on. I'm not suggesting you or I (personally) should subcontract through IBM, but for a US-based non-tech firm, it can make a lot of sense. To flip this around, whom would you rather hire to do your accounting (presuming you're not an accountant and know nothing about accounting): - A US company which outsources to India - A random company in India I would go for the former, since I know there would be liability if they messed up, and they'd make sure the US tax code was properly complied with. There's nothing wrong with the latter, but I'd have no way to vet them, and if they messed up, no recourse.

ab_testing 5y ago

> IBM isn't a bad choice. It's a major step up from Indian firms in terms of both price and quality. It has significant in-house technology to leverage. It's a safe choice. It will usually do better than in-house IT. Having been there, I can say that IBM is no different than the other Indian tech firms like Infosys, Wipro, HCL and other. Infact, there is a rotating door of employees among IBM and other Indian firms. 1. Since the last 5 years, IBM has more employees in India than in the US or any other country [1] 2. Secondly IBM pays more that the Indian companies in India to poach employees but shortchange their US counterparts. [2] Infact, the only difference between IBM and other firms is that the initial sales procoess is handled by American counterparts. Once the sales piece is done and the actual project starts, it is replaced by the offshore team. [1] https://www.zdnet.com/article/ibm-now-has-more-workers-in-india-than-in-america-reprise/ https://www.zdnet.com/article/ibm-now-has-more-workers-in-in... [2] https://www.postbulletin.com/opinion/ibm-to-give-raises-to-india-employees-but-while-holding-back-in-u-s https://www.postbulletin.com/opinion/ibm-to-give-raises-to-i...

yardie 5y ago

> IBM isn't a bad choice. It's a major step up from Indian firms in terms of both price and quality. Oh, my sweet child. You might be surprised to learn that IBM and those SWE boiler rooms like WiPro are basically the same.