12 ms·

I don’t understand what game IBM is playing with Red Hat. I was under the impression they were profitable prior to the acquisition so I’m not sure why they’re s

by a2tech 3y ago

I don’t understand what game IBM is playing with Red Hat. I was under the impression they were profitable prior to the acquisition so I’m not sure why they’re squeezing so hard and ruining the great brand and good will Red Hat had built up.

adql 3y ago
The same game they play with their main customers, make sure they will have more and more problems leaving.
Timon3 3y ago
IBM is stuck in a cycle of constant re-invention, because they somehow manage to always re-invent themselves in ways that are even worse and more complicated for customers, which they try to fix by re-inventing themselves again. Even if they initially planned on leaving Red Hat alone, every re-invention is a chance for some executive to make the decision to squeeze a little tighter on existing customers. So the question shouldn't be "what game is IBM playing with Red Hat", but "how long until nothing usable is left". I'd say maybe 20 more re-inventions, or 1-2 years.
- 5e92cb50239222b 3y ago
  Yet they're still way older than most tech companies. I'd wager they will outlive 99.99% of those unicorn startups yet.
  - Fordec 3y ago
    The Lindy Effect.[0] [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindy_effect https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindy_effect
  - taeric 3y ago
    How much of that is lingering brand value, though? That and simple ties into existing and old industries. You are also comparing to startups? Which... yes, most things die. Sometimes, it is the old things that die. Often taking a lot of other younger things with them.
  - anyoneamous 3y ago
    Immortality is a curse, not a blessing.
- pjmlp 3y ago
  Many startups can only dream of being as long and influential as IBM is. Also note that IBM contributions to Linux kernel in 2000, was one of the reasons it actually took off.
  - Timon3 3y ago
    > Many startups can only dream of being as long and influential as IBM is. Okay? Do you feel attacked because I wrote something negative about IBM? Not sure how that is relevant to my point. > Also note that IBM contributions to Linux kernel in 2000, was one of the reasons it actually took off. And that influences the motivations behind their current decisions how exactly?
    - pjmlp 3y ago
      Me attacked, not all. HN loves to hate Oracle, IBM, SAP, Adobe and friends, without getting the point that many startups that go through HN programs never achieve half of what they produce.
      - Timon3 3y ago
        What do startups have to do with IBMs business direction and processes? How does this relate to my point? Not every startup being successful somehow means that I shouldn't comment on IBMs recent business decisions?
        pjmlp 3y ago
        A matter of perspective into actual influence into the capitalist US society.
      - dizhn 3y ago
        We seem to even be hating on RedHat now. (I was bummed about the Centos thing too). People on this thread are acting like Redhat doesn't even release any free software.
- zitterbewegung 3y ago
  I think you are being very pessimistic. All of their acquisitions are used to fund reinventions but due to their existing mainframe and other support contracts it makes a moat that people have a hard time crossing. I could see Oracle being merged or bought by IBM.
  - 0x0000000 3y ago
    > I could see Oracle being merged or bought by IBM. Their market caps are almost identical, and personally I'd say it'll be a cold day in hell before Oracle merges with, nevermind is acquired by, IBM.
  - Timon3 3y ago
    I definitely am pessimistic, but that is probably due to my time working for them :) I can't remember any acquisition during my time there that didn't get significantly worse. Red Hat was the one hold-out, but this thread is example enough for me to know that nothing has changed since.
kermatt 3y ago
> I was under the impression they were profitable prior to the acquisition so I’m not sure why they’re squeezing so hard and ruining the great brand and good will Red Hat had built up. Some growth metric that can't be realized quick enough through innovation (new products or services), so the only recourse is to cut costs or get more revenue from existing products without improving them.
a_subsystem 3y ago
IBM is slowly ruining everything they produce. Their systems are incredibly secure because it's extremely difficult to even run them normally as an operator, much less hack in. The byzantine/circular documentation and downloads pages on their site are woefully inadequate in enabling developers. Web searches reveal little information if you have a problem, as not many people run these systems. You generally have to pay stunning amounts to 3rd party professionals to manage your platform for even what should be relatively simple things like patching (PTFs), OS updates, and language upgrades. They will balk if you tell them they have bugs in their systems unless you can produce code yourself pinpointing the problem. They aren't interested in working with schools/universities to train young people to create fresh workers knowledgeable on their systems. Seems like they are milking the company and coasting until it expires.
- godzillabrennus 3y ago
  I heard from a former employee at IBM that management has been offended the media used FAANG to describe big tech, because they are delusional and still think they are relevant enough to be big tech…
  - krylon 3y ago
    The slightly, but not too much, sad part is that if they had played their cards right, IBM could be a lot more relevant today than it is. Some aspects of their tech still are quite impressive and unmatched by offerings in the open systems space. But the profit margins on their mainframe business are (last I heard anything about it) really juicy, and in today's business world, that appears to incentivize IBM management to go for the low hanging fruit of milking that while effectively cannibalizing their own market in the long run.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- barbariangrunge 3y ago
  When I think of ibm, I think of how my wife had to attend special training on how to get paid at her government job due to how unreliable and chaotic the phoenix payroll system is. How it’s sometimes like a part time job sorting through it, and how they are all given time each month as needed to spend days on the phone trying to get somebody to manually fix issues that come up > By July 2018, Phoenix has caused pay problems to close to 80 percent of the federal government's 290,000 public servants through underpayments, over-payments, and non-payments. > Instead of saving $70 million a year as planned, the report said that the cost to taxpayers to fix Phoenix's problems could reach a total of $2.2 billion by 2023 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_pay_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_pay_system
throwaway12245 3y ago
IBM bought Lotus 1-2-3. Looks like the same playbook.
- jmclnx 3y ago
  Yes. They bought it for Notes, Notes was good before IBM purchased it, rel 4 was pretty good. New Releases it got worse and worse. They finally dumped it I think two years ago and sold it to another company.
windexh8er 3y ago
> I don’t understand what game IBM is playing with Red Hat. And this is yet another part of the reason why I don't understand the big push for RedHat specific tooling. Podman comes up a lot. But, just like with everything RHEL it seems as though RedHat / IBM wants to be the Apple of Linux. I'm not a fan of that. I also don't believe IBM is a good steward of OSS based on how I've seen them try to sell it in the enterprise.
- anyoneamous 3y ago
  > I don't understand the big push for RedHat specific tooling I'd wager it is driven by RH simply being "least worst" of the options which can be relied on to stick around long enough for enterprise users. Canonical are doing their best to screw the pooch with snap and similar nonsense, leaving the only other option being cobbling together a collection of tools from fly-by-night small projects - which might go full unicorn-wannabe and adopt an open-core SaaS model any second.
  - mjevans 3y ago
    Debian? Maybe SUSE? Offhand I don't know enterprise level support for any of them, but I expect 'support' solutions are offered for all of them, even if not first party as an outside source.
    - anyoneamous 3y ago
      SUSE is the other one I thought about mentioning - but I have only really seen it used with SAP. A big part of the problem is ISVs refusing to test their software on more than just RH - which is not in itself a totally unreasonable position - but it does now give IBM too much clout.
  - windexh8er 3y ago
    I guess I should have been more clear. What I meant was that there seem to be a lot of die hard RedHat fans that hock the RedHat ecosystem for no apparent gain. I failed to make my point clearly, however. Podman is one of those tools that seem to follow up that narrative. RedHat could invest in the container ecosystem to make things better. Instead they strive to compete and hang their hat on very specific arguments against products that were (and still are in many cases) more complete.
passterby 3y ago
[dead]
rodgerd 3y ago
> I don’t understand what game IBM is playing with Red Hat. IBM is doing the thing IBM knows how to do, which is have their internal politics, honed over a century or so, dictate the customer experience.

by a2tech 3y ago

adql 3y ago

The same game they play with their main customers, make sure they will have more and more problems leaving.

Timon3 3y ago

IBM is stuck in a cycle of constant re-invention, because they somehow manage to always re-invent themselves in ways that are even worse and more complicated for customers, which they try to fix by re-inventing themselves again. Even if they initially planned on leaving Red Hat alone, every re-invention is a chance for some executive to make the decision to squeeze a little tighter on existing customers. So the question shouldn't be "what game is IBM playing with Red Hat", but "how long until nothing usable is left". I'd say maybe 20 more re-inventions, or 1-2 years.

5e92cb50239222b 3y ago
Yet they're still way older than most tech companies. I'd wager they will outlive 99.99% of those unicorn startups yet.
- Fordec 3y ago
  The Lindy Effect.[0] [0] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindy_effect https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindy_effect
- taeric 3y ago
  How much of that is lingering brand value, though? That and simple ties into existing and old industries. You are also comparing to startups? Which... yes, most things die. Sometimes, it is the old things that die. Often taking a lot of other younger things with them.
- anyoneamous 3y ago
  Immortality is a curse, not a blessing.
pjmlp 3y ago
Many startups can only dream of being as long and influential as IBM is. Also note that IBM contributions to Linux kernel in 2000, was one of the reasons it actually took off.
- Timon3 3y ago
  > Many startups can only dream of being as long and influential as IBM is. Okay? Do you feel attacked because I wrote something negative about IBM? Not sure how that is relevant to my point. > Also note that IBM contributions to Linux kernel in 2000, was one of the reasons it actually took off. And that influences the motivations behind their current decisions how exactly?
  - pjmlp 3y ago
    Me attacked, not all. HN loves to hate Oracle, IBM, SAP, Adobe and friends, without getting the point that many startups that go through HN programs never achieve half of what they produce.
    - Timon3 3y ago
      What do startups have to do with IBMs business direction and processes? How does this relate to my point? Not every startup being successful somehow means that I shouldn't comment on IBMs recent business decisions?
      - pjmlp 3y ago
        A matter of perspective into actual influence into the capitalist US society.
    - dizhn 3y ago
      We seem to even be hating on RedHat now. (I was bummed about the Centos thing too). People on this thread are acting like Redhat doesn't even release any free software.
zitterbewegung 3y ago
I think you are being very pessimistic. All of their acquisitions are used to fund reinventions but due to their existing mainframe and other support contracts it makes a moat that people have a hard time crossing. I could see Oracle being merged or bought by IBM.
- 0x0000000 3y ago
  > I could see Oracle being merged or bought by IBM. Their market caps are almost identical, and personally I'd say it'll be a cold day in hell before Oracle merges with, nevermind is acquired by, IBM.
- Timon3 3y ago
  I definitely am pessimistic, but that is probably due to my time working for them :) I can't remember any acquisition during my time there that didn't get significantly worse. Red Hat was the one hold-out, but this thread is example enough for me to know that nothing has changed since.

kermatt 3y ago

> I was under the impression they were profitable prior to the acquisition so I’m not sure why they’re squeezing so hard and ruining the great brand and good will Red Hat had built up. Some growth metric that can't be realized quick enough through innovation (new products or services), so the only recourse is to cut costs or get more revenue from existing products without improving them.

a_subsystem 3y ago

IBM is slowly ruining everything they produce. Their systems are incredibly secure because it's extremely difficult to even run them normally as an operator, much less hack in. The byzantine/circular documentation and downloads pages on their site are woefully inadequate in enabling developers. Web searches reveal little information if you have a problem, as not many people run these systems. You generally have to pay stunning amounts to 3rd party professionals to manage your platform for even what should be relatively simple things like patching (PTFs), OS updates, and language upgrades. They will balk if you tell them they have bugs in their systems unless you can produce code yourself pinpointing the problem. They aren't interested in working with schools/universities to train young people to create fresh workers knowledgeable on their systems. Seems like they are milking the company and coasting until it expires.

godzillabrennus 3y ago
I heard from a former employee at IBM that management has been offended the media used FAANG to describe big tech, because they are delusional and still think they are relevant enough to be big tech…
- krylon 3y ago
  The slightly, but not too much, sad part is that if they had played their cards right, IBM could be a lot more relevant today than it is. Some aspects of their tech still are quite impressive and unmatched by offerings in the open systems space. But the profit margins on their mainframe business are (last I heard anything about it) really juicy, and in today's business world, that appears to incentivize IBM management to go for the low hanging fruit of milking that while effectively cannibalizing their own market in the long run.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
barbariangrunge 3y ago
When I think of ibm, I think of how my wife had to attend special training on how to get paid at her government job due to how unreliable and chaotic the phoenix payroll system is. How it’s sometimes like a part time job sorting through it, and how they are all given time each month as needed to spend days on the phone trying to get somebody to manually fix issues that come up > By July 2018, Phoenix has caused pay problems to close to 80 percent of the federal government's 290,000 public servants through underpayments, over-payments, and non-payments. > Instead of saving $70 million a year as planned, the report said that the cost to taxpayers to fix Phoenix's problems could reach a total of $2.2 billion by 2023 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_pay_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_pay_system

throwaway12245 3y ago

IBM bought Lotus 1-2-3. Looks like the same playbook.

jmclnx 3y ago
Yes. They bought it for Notes, Notes was good before IBM purchased it, rel 4 was pretty good. New Releases it got worse and worse. They finally dumped it I think two years ago and sold it to another company.

windexh8er 3y ago

> I don’t understand what game IBM is playing with Red Hat. And this is yet another part of the reason why I don't understand the big push for RedHat specific tooling. Podman comes up a lot. But, just like with everything RHEL it seems as though RedHat / IBM wants to be the Apple of Linux. I'm not a fan of that. I also don't believe IBM is a good steward of OSS based on how I've seen them try to sell it in the enterprise.

anyoneamous 3y ago
> I don't understand the big push for RedHat specific tooling I'd wager it is driven by RH simply being "least worst" of the options which can be relied on to stick around long enough for enterprise users. Canonical are doing their best to screw the pooch with snap and similar nonsense, leaving the only other option being cobbling together a collection of tools from fly-by-night small projects - which might go full unicorn-wannabe and adopt an open-core SaaS model any second.
- mjevans 3y ago
  Debian? Maybe SUSE? Offhand I don't know enterprise level support for any of them, but I expect 'support' solutions are offered for all of them, even if not first party as an outside source.
  - anyoneamous 3y ago
    SUSE is the other one I thought about mentioning - but I have only really seen it used with SAP. A big part of the problem is ISVs refusing to test their software on more than just RH - which is not in itself a totally unreasonable position - but it does now give IBM too much clout.
- windexh8er 3y ago
  I guess I should have been more clear. What I meant was that there seem to be a lot of die hard RedHat fans that hock the RedHat ecosystem for no apparent gain. I failed to make my point clearly, however. Podman is one of those tools that seem to follow up that narrative. RedHat could invest in the container ecosystem to make things better. Instead they strive to compete and hang their hat on very specific arguments against products that were (and still are in many cases) more complete.

passterby 3y ago

[dead]

rodgerd 3y ago

> I don’t understand what game IBM is playing with Red Hat. IBM is doing the thing IBM knows how to do, which is have their internal politics, honed over a century or so, dictate the customer experience.