13 ms·

The Rise and Fall of the 'IBM Way'

124 points by samizdis 3y ago

hdk 3y ago
https://archive.ph/QeSny https://archive.ph/QeSny
- neonate 3y ago
  https://web.archive.org/web/20231213142931/https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2024/01/ibm-greatest-capitalist-tom-watson/676147/ https://web.archive.org/web/20231213142931/https://www.theat...
63 3y ago
> But ask an ordinary person under the age of 40 what exactly IBM does (or did), and the responses will be vague at best. “Something to do with computers, right?” was the best the Gen Zers I queried could come up with. If a Millennial knows anything about IBM, it’s Watson, the company’s prototype AI system that prevailed on Jeopardy in 2011. I find this attitude to be fairly trite and disingenuous. Maybe we should ask millennials and zoomers what exactly it is that Goldman Sachs does or Dow or Cisco or any other large company that doesn't sell majority direct to consumer and see if we get a more intelligible answer. Just because a company isn't selling to you specifically doesn't mean it's a failure. I'm happy to criticize IBM, but let's do it for legitimate reasons (trend chasing, perhaps?) and not "my 16 year old doesn't know what they do so they must not be relevant"
- gtirloni 3y ago
  IBM used to sell computers directly to consumers. They don't do that anymore so it's normal that IBM isn't on anyone's mind for a long time now. My mom knew IBM pretty well decades ago when she was a typist. Nowadays she wouldn't have a clue if IBM still exists or what it does.
  - ghaff 3y ago
    If you go back before the IBM PC, the average consumer might well know they made typewriters and probably have some notion about them selling big computers to banks and the like. They'd almost certainly be vague on anything beyond that.
    - cafard 3y ago
      Fifty years ago, when I had nothing to do with the tech industry, I knew that IBM made computers. I didn't know what those computers looked like or who used them, but I knew they made them.
  - mikestew 3y ago
    IBM used to sell computers directly to consumers. For a brief, maybe fifteen year period out of their 100 year history. And even those weren't big sellers. Point being, I don't know that it was ever reasonable to ask the "man on the street" what IBM does, and expect anything but a vague answer. Hell, my mother used to program their 370s and System/38s (precursor to the AS400). I haven't asked, but if asked the same question, I wouldn't be shocked if her answer were, "wait, they're still in business?"
    - bluedino 3y ago
      My grandmother has been retired for years, she worked as an accountant. Any time there's a conversation about computers, she'll pipe in with remarks about how "Compaq makes the best computers".
    - cbarrick 3y ago
      > For a brief, maybe fifteen year period out of their 100 year history. More like 34 years. The IBM PC debuted in 1981, and they sold their PC business to Lenovo in 2005. > And even those weren't big sellers. Still, let's not downplay the impact that the IBM PC had on the industry.
      - mikestew 3y ago
- KerrAvon 3y ago
  Article's paywalled, so apologies if this is out of context, but it seems like a legit point in this case. From the 1950's through the 90's IBM was familiar to consumers. You'd probably have used multiple IBM products at some point even if you didn't own one; you certainly knew about them. If nothing else, IBM typewriters and PCs were ubiquitous. That version of IBM is gone, and it seems reasonable to argue that this is a negative. (Whether or not you agree with it.)
- cjbgkagh 3y ago
  Gen Z is 1997-2012, aged from 11 to 26. It’s likely that the Gen Z they’re most experienced with are strongly biased to the 26 y/o end and that’s old enough to know a few things.
  - alephnerd 3y ago
    IBM is still fairly active at job fairs. Most Gen Z CS/CE/EE majors will know of IBM because they applied there for a job or internship. They'd pay shit but if you had a beating pulse and attended the right college they'd hire you. A great backup option in the 2010s
- wharvle 3y ago
  I'm not sure it's so much criticism as observing that they've gone from being the Ford of computers to being... IDK, some parts manufacturer for cars that nobody's aware of unless they're in the industry.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- codexb 3y ago
  I think the point is that IBM is ostensibly a "tech" company and most people in tech (young and old) have never dealt with them nor do they know any of their products. We vaguely remember seeing IBM-branded desktops decades 30+ years ago, but that's about it. Ask people about any large company in their own industry and they would know at least one of their products or services, and that includes Goldman Sachs, Dow, or Cisco.
  - DebtDeflation 3y ago
    >most people in tech (young and old) have never dealt with them nor do they know any of their products It depends on how "working in tech" is defined. If you work in IT at a Fortune 500 bank, insurance company, telco, manufacturing company, etc. then you almost certainly Know who IBM, SAP, Oracle, etc. are. If you work for FAANGMULA and adjacent SV companies you probably don't especially if you are under 35 or so.
    - akaahduofjdr 3y ago
      Thats because FAANGMULA is mostly composed of media companies pretending to be tech companies. The business model is 100% a media and entertainment buisness model for most of the companies on that list. I don't think it is even controversial to argue this so long as we can agree that a company cannot call itself a tech company simply because they hired a lot of programmers and are paying them decent salaries. A tech company is a company that makes most of their money selling computer hardware and software products (and to a lesser extent, services and support for software and hardware products although it could be argued that is a different classification but with substantial overlap). Notably, it has to be computers, not entertainment delivered via computers, or ads delivered through computers, and not industrials or pharmaceuticals or any number of other "technical but not 'tech' as in computers" industries. Tech is and has always meant IT, as in companies that are in the information and computers businesses. Where programmers happen to work, make the highest salary, or be the most highly concentrated has never mattered.
      - lotsofpulp 3y ago
- csydas 3y ago
  I think this is overly critical and I'm not sure I can see the justification. My understanding from that quote is that IBM is a name that everyone "knows", but fewer and fewer persons actually know what IBM even does anymore or why IBM is a household name. Your additional examples aren't really counter examples most probably for most people; you've just listed additional companies that are likely common enough names that no one else outside the tech/finance sphere really knows why the name is a known name. I don't see this as disingenuous, I see as an accurate reflection of the modern interpretation of many of these older companies. Apple for example is "relatively" old(er), but you can ask anyone what you might get from Apple right now and probably they can name at least one thing like "oh yeah they make good phones" or "I like their laptops." My entire professional career has been in IT/Programming, and the best I can tell you about what IBM offers is "eh, you can pay a ton for a contract for some server hardware/software. Hardware support is fine, but the rest is a dice roll on what you're actually getting for your money." I don't associate IBM at this point with a specific service or product I'd seek so much as just "this is a tech company that you pay a ton of money to and hope it works out for your project". Though I will give them credit for their LTO tape hardware -- that is solid and straight forward enough for my tastes. My personal experience, half the time I talk to IBM sales team or even their engineering team, I end up with far more questions than answers, and I get the distinct impression I'm offending the IBM rep for even questioning what they're saying, no matter how ridiculous their statements are. I know what the words they're saying mean and I understand what the tech is, but when I have practical questions about their design choices or implementation guidance and the IBM employees act as if they resent me for questioning them, I too wonder why IBM is really trying to accomplish in our meetings -- do they want to sell something that will help with my problem scope or do they just want lock-in? This question isn't unique to IBM naturally, but if that's what ends up occupying my mind after a meeting with IBM representatives, I'm quite certain it's an indicator that it's not something I want my team to get wrapped up in. Edit: Changed "else outside the tech sphere" to "else outside the tech/finance sphere"
- goalieca 3y ago
  Millennial here: Rational rose and PowerPC. Both leave a stink in my mouth. And how could anyone in Canada forget the Phoenix pay system. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_pay_system https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_pay_system
hinkley 3y ago
IBM has a fondness for complexity that makes the current situation with cloud offerings look like children's toys. Their Global Services division could be summarized as a War on Kernighan's Law. Find clever people, and have them strain themselves to stand up a system so complex that you not only need to keep paying GS to show up and maintain it, but in fact you probably need to hire two more people just to keep the wheels on. That has made them many enemies on the technical side of things. People like me go out of our ways to sabotage any inroads they try to make because we know what will happen if we don't. Presentations of systems so complex you get a headache trying to wrap your mind around it. If we talk about it, it's not for long and with as few ears to overhear as possible. It's like guerilla warfare. Targeted attacks against a foe who could crush you like a bug if they knew where to find you. Oracle sniffing around is merely an irritation compared to the spectre of IBM GS getting their hooks into your CTO.
- gtirloni 3y ago
  Making thing simpler is hard. Any technical excellence at IBM is probably an island and definitely doesn't represent the rest of the company. In my time there, only one thing mattered: head count (or more precisely, body count). It didn't matter if those heads could think. It was all about closing outsourcing contracts and making a profit. With the occasional sprinkle of Watson propaganda sprinkled on top to make it look like you were at the pinnacle of computing. I'm surprised IBM still exists. I can't remember a single company that I worked for where IBM would have helped anything.
  - hinkley 3y ago
    IBM isn’t just accidentally leaving things complex, they sell tools that fix problems almost nobody has. What’s that XML RPC gateway they were peddling years ago? Jesus Christ just use nginx and learn to manage certs.
    - saiya-jin 3y ago
      'Fond' memories for monstrosities like Websphere or MQ servers. Take trivial JMS or less-trivial-but-grokkable J2EE spec, add 10x more ultra-proprietary stuff that is very complex to grok compared to original spec, solves little on top in real world, makes you utterly vendor-locked in for every app until complete rewrite. You need additional Eclipse-based apps to work with it at all, and IIRC they were costly as hell too. Rinse and repeat. Then there was Weblogic, that worked as well and mostly by standards. Devs I met everywhere loved it.
cowpig 3y ago
This article is terribly written. It flows between strong claims like this one: > The company’s technological accomplishments are still recognizable as the forerunners of the digital era, yet its culture of social responsibility—a focus on employees rather than shareholders, restraint in executive compensation, and investment in anti-poverty programs—proved a dead end. And loose narrative, without ever tying the two together at all. How was this culture of social responsibility a "dead end" exactly? Oh, it's just a vibe. Let's talk about Watson family drama.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- projektfu 3y ago
  I think it means they were losing money before they put Watson Jr. out to pasture and brought in the hatchet man Gerstner, who took millions per year and left after 13 years with a $189 million severance package. IBM seemed more successful by the early 2000s. I am not sure how the anti-poverty programs tie in but most likely they were just scrapped as no longer in fashion.
bcantrill 3y ago
To anyone interested in the history of IBM (and I think the TJ Watson Jr. era has many lessons to teach!), be sure to also read IBM and the Holocaust by Edwin Black. I read this recently -- and wished I had read it much earlier.[0] [0] https://bcantrill.dtrace.org/2023/11/26/what-punch-cards-teach-us-about-ai-risk/ https://bcantrill.dtrace.org/2023/11/26/what-punch-cards-tea...
- not2b 3y ago
  Yes, I was surprised that this article didn't mention that even though The Atlantic has written about it before.
GiorgioG 3y ago
My father in law worked for IBM in the 60s-90s in chip fab / manufacturing in NY. They used to make everything down to the screws that held the machines together, had their own paint shop, etc. By the time he left all of that was gone.
- bruce511 3y ago
  This is not uncommon in "new" industries. You see the same effect in cars and planes - in the early years the companies had to "do everything". Once scale is reached then companies appear that do "just on task", which then "take over" that task for the parent. This plays out at the small scale as well. When I started out writing commercial software it was very common to either sell a PC with it, or at least sell the concept of computerisation. For lots of companies this was their first computer. We were their defects IT department. 10 years goes past, and customers now already have computers. 10 more years and they have IT either on staff, or on contract. We got to go back to writing software. In the same way, yes, IBM needed to do everything. There was no off-the-shelf anything. So try make hardware, wrote software, sold services. And this is the point. IBM always existed to sell services. Everything else was to get them there. Other people made hardware. Others made software. They are left to focus on their services. This is likely revisionist history because I'm sure along the way lots of IBMers saw themselves as a hardware or software company. But I'm not sure that was ever the "core" idea. Those were just necessary to sell services, and were off-loaded along the way.
  - zer00eyz 3y ago
    > This is not uncommon in "new" industries. You see the same effect in cars and planes - in the early years the companies had to "do everything". Once scale is reached then companies appear that do "just on task", which then "take over" that task for the parent. This is called vertical integration. It's not about "new" though it does crop up there. Amazon is an example of this: Chips for servers, warehouses, ships, vans for last mile... YKK zippers is another, they make their own equipment, refine raw materials all in an effort to have the best final product (and it shows). > And this is the point. IBM always existed to sell services. Everything else was to get them there. So the bit where IBM sold typewriters and time clocks in 1911 was all a big plot to sell software services someday? > 10 years goes past, and customers now already have computers. 10 more years and they have IT either on staff, or on contract. The failure of IBM is long, slow and tragic. It is a failure to evolve with the market, it is the gutting and miss management of core assets.
AlbertCory 3y ago
I nearly went to IBM. Fortunately I didn't. Their program for plant visits was the best of any of the companies I interviewed with: at the end of the day, they asked me to estimate all my expenses, and then they handed me an envelope of cash. Another legacy company book HN'ers would really like for a Christmas gift is "Bill & Dave" https://www.amazon.com/Bill-Dave-Hewlett-Packard-Greatest/dp/1591841526/ref=sr_1_1 https://www.amazon.com/Bill-Dave-Hewlett-Packard-Greatest/dp... the author is an unabashed fanboy, and the history ends with Mark Hurd before he imploded. Still, it's a great history of a (formerly) great company.
- no_wizard 3y ago
  how did Mark Hurd implode? I've never heard this before
  - ghaff 3y ago
    A lot of his success was increasingly viewed as financial engineering that included things like really cutting back on research. He was eventually forced out over some expense picadillos that were presumably cover for the fact that the board just didn't want him there any more. (Or there may have been been other issues that AFAIK never came fully to light.)
    - nickpeterson 3y ago
      I'm pretty sure the reason for Mark Hurd's exit was for something quite different. https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/12/all-dirty-details-mark-hurds-sexual-misdeeds/333707/ https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/12/all-dir...
      - ghaff 3y ago
        I wasn't paying much attention to HP by then as I had moved companies and roles. As I recall, everyone strongly suspected this kind of thing because the public reason for his departure at the time didn't really pass the sniff test. There was also a lot of boardroom and executive drama at HP before, during, and after Hurd's time there.
sllabres 3y ago
Particularly the Gen Z should know at least the IBM Mainframes
graycat 3y ago
I spent some time with IBM: Worked on the inside in an AI (artificial intelligence) project at their research lab and also outside -- sometimes a happy customer and sometimes fighting with IBM and being happy with other computer vendors. Here is how IBM worked when their approach worked well: They would have polished sales representatives (reps) who would get the confidence of a relatively high decision maker, commonly a CEO, also with contacts with the BOD, in an organization that had some serious data processing problems. The IBM rep would talk with the CEO (decision maker) about the problems and claim that IBM could implement a good solution. Commonly that was music to the ears of the CEO -- just give the leadership, design work, technical work and products of the solution to IBM. Generally we would regard IBM's charges as high, but in the target companies (1) IBM didn't have serious competition and (2) the company and their problem was so big that the IBM charges were worth it. With the business at a target customer, IBM worked hard, made sure the hard/software was highly reliable, and delivered good results. E.g., one customer was a medical insurance company. They had staffs in three time zones keying in medical claims applications. For this they had a mainframe computer, with their usual operating system, their network equipment ending with their 3270 terminals, COBOL-based (right, maybe PL/I, etc.) applications software, DB2 relational data base, etc. The system worked very well: A significant outage meant that to keep up with the work staff would have to be called back after hours and paid overtime. Soooo, it was important that the whole system had almost no downtime. Part of the approach was to have a test system and for any hard/software update, run it on the test system for some days before using the update for the real work. Both IBM and the customer were very serious. Uh, having to pay some overtime could cost the System Manager his bonus. Now, there are lots of options for data entry. PCs and even laptops can play a major role. The mainframes IBM was selling as computers were tiny and slow compared with nearly any desktop or laptop PC now. Having one PC out of hundreds+ quit does not have to be serious problem. Now lots of people and companies can set up serious, reliable, powerful computing installations, and IBM is no longer the only option. And the IBM target customer is no longer such a big part of computing.
jonathaneunice 3y ago
Another, contrarian perspective: I worked with IBM Fellows, CTOs, Distinguished Engineers, VPs, and divisional GMs for two decades, and they were sharp. Less than 1N on the CATRA scale sharp. Absolutely on par with folks I worked with Apple, HP, Intel, Microsoft, Oracle, Sun Microsystems, and IBM's competitors of the time. IBM's approach was indeed heavy-weight, and they loved complexifying things—but so did a lot of their customers in finance, aerospace, automotive, consumer goods, yadda yadda. IT operated by an entirely different business model and set of preferences in 1960–1990 than it did in 2000. It was the bespoke, pre-open standards, we'll handle all the edge cases in this lovingly homegrown solution era. The products were expensive, but in many cases solved technical operational problems that nothing else did. "Best of breed" was a common rallying cry; interchangeable parts and the virtues of utter standardization only came into prominence slowly. The world's very different now, and there was enormous tension inside IBM, and between IBM and its customers and competitors, evolving to where we are today. (The same was true of almost all the legacy competitors.) However real that tension, what worked in the Before Times was the cause, not that IBM only employed doofuses or brought Mongol Hordes and crappy technology to bear.
- rqtwteye 3y ago
  I worked at IBM Research in 2003 for a year. There were a ton of extremely bright people there. It was pretty cool to go around a corner and see an office that belonged to Benoit Mandelbrot. Another office had the name tag of one of the "Design Patterns" guys. But it felt like IBM Research was totally disconnected from the actual business of IBM. The switch away from pensions also seemed to make IBM way less attractive for new hires.
  - EschatonCometh 3y ago
    I spent a couple of Summers in Yorktown Heights and even had lunch with Beniot a couple of times. To have the second largest super computer down the hall, an electron tunneling microscope, and beauty of the Hudson Valley seems like a bygone era. The innovation, patents, and persona were not enough to move the needle vs Silicon Valley.
  - 3y ago
dakial1 3y ago
Worked at IBM for some time recently and I agree with many people here about the amazing technical talent there. Really bright people with deep understanding about their fields. I also worked with some very good project managers there, that can move very complex projects ahead like a maestro. IBM problem today is: 1) The bureaucracy and general organizational sluggishness created by years and years of policy over policy to avoid 1%, 2% risks that in the end impact 100% of the company. 2) the leadership, which mostly come from the commercial part of the firm and are "number cookers", who now how to play the forementioned bureaucracy and controls, moving around air to look like their are beating their targets. This makes the company extremely slow, unwilling to take risks, letting Google and Microsoft pass them repeatedly. Personal Computers, the Internet, Cloud Computing and now AI. IBM was at the right place on all of those opportunities, but its internal problems made it unable to take the right action to fetch them.
- frozenport 3y ago
  They were not in the right place. They were directly competing with the future of tech, in particular as it applied to personal use.
- kayodelycaon 3y ago
  They also axed an enormous number of experienced field-support techs and lost most of their institutional support knowledge in the process.
- bane 3y ago
  I worked for a startup that sold to IBM. My impression is that IBM has been in the business of responding to market needs by attempting to build the best possible technical solution that also drives customers to stay in the IBM sphere. However, what IBM forgot is that the market is big, and the market drives towards commoditization wherever it can. Any technical advancement that makes technology faster/cheaper is where the market will go -- even if it means compromising in other areas like up-time. IBM is, naturally, allergic to becoming a commodity and tries to drive to higher margin business. e.g. Mainframes, consultant heavy engagements, AI, etc. But the revolution that happened since the PC revolution, that commodity hardware and open source software (free in beer and freedom) could power companies both the size of IBM and in the same competitive space seems to be a lesson IBM has perpetually never quite gotten into their DNA. There's no "fixing" IBM. It will linger on momentum for a while until somebody else eventually just buys it for whatever IP they can squeeze out of it, dismembers the corpse, and spins out single purpose core businesses all in one excrement pile. It might take another decade or so, but it's coming.
hn8305823 3y ago
> Dick Watson was a much less rebellious character than Tom; he’d even permitted his father to accompany him and his bride on their honeymoon. 1) What
paulorlando 3y ago
I grew up near where IBM was started in a small town that had an IBM secret military project (top 10 bomb target for USSR!). While no one could tell me what they or their parents did at IBM, I heard some fun stories. One was about a guy who disliked people visiting his office, so he barricaded his door and would climb in and out through the transom window.
jamal-kumar 3y ago
IBM used to have a bunch of songs they'd get together to sing Here's a fun Christmas themed one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxFMV6tAg64 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxFMV6tAg64
m463 3y ago
I remember the original IBM "think pad": https://www.wired.com/2009/10/the-original-ibm-thinkpad-was-a-tablet/ https://www.wired.com/2009/10/the-original-ibm-thinkpad-was-... Before there even were computers, they gave out these small paper pads for jotting things down, with "THINK" on the cover.
Bayaz 3y ago
I don’t really have anything to contribute, but feel compelled to express how depressing it is to see IBM today. My first computer was an IBM PS/2 Model 25. It came with a budget version of the Model M keyboard, but without the number pad. It’s still the gold standard for how a keyboard should feel. If it wasn’t an IBM computer then it was a cheap clone. Later in life, I was inspired to go to law school because of the SCO vs IBM case, and the excellent lawyering by IBM’s counsel. Now, it’s like watching a zombie movie. I don’t even know what they do anymore.
- akaahduofjdr 3y ago
  I agree with you about this but have an even darker take in that I see the exact same lack of vision in every single large tech company out there today. I mean, IBM does actually sell hardware and software ...that's a lot more than you can say about some of the other big names out there. I have a theory that the death of the traditional computer company and it's buisness model, in the sense a company like an Oxide or IBM or Sun would understand the term "computer company", as well as the transition to the cloud for all new infrastructure, fundamentally changed the landscape in tech in a very negative way culturally speaking. The hyperspecialization of the industry and consolidation of hardware into a single dominant platform for most serious buisness computing needs, obviated the need for traditional engineering cultures. It's hardly any wonder that this same transition also was a transition towards Agile development methods (or rather a cheap imitation of them, if it was ever even intended to be some paradigm shift at all). The industry and the vibes I got were radically different and better even during ostensibly difficult times like right after dotcom.
  - lotsofpulp 3y ago
    > I mean, IBM does actually sell hardware and software ...that's a lot more than you can say about some of the other big names out there. The other big names do, they just rent it instead of selling it. All the data centers/custom processors in cloud services are hardware and software, not to mention Apple’s hardware for consumers, and Microsoft’s surface tablets and Xbox, and Alphabet’s phones, Meta’s headsets, Nvidia’s GPUs, etc.
- 3y ago
mynameisnoone 3y ago
Unhumble brag: A PI at IBM Almaden tried to hire me as a paid dark matter research assistant ~1994. Plot twist: I wasn't old enough to drive much less take a gig because parental units and school were involved between the ages of 15.5 and 18. Awesome brag: The road leading to the IBM Almaden front gate was fun to bike down.
anjel 3y ago
Spilling some beer for the Model M buckling spring keyboard, an evolutionary dead for no good reason. (Unicomp is not equivalent)

124 points by samizdis 3y ago

hdk 3y ago

https://archive.ph/QeSny https://archive.ph/QeSny

neonate 3y ago
https://web.archive.org/web/20231213142931/https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2024/01/ibm-greatest-capitalist-tom-watson/676147/ https://web.archive.org/web/20231213142931/https://www.theat...

63 3y ago

> But ask an ordinary person under the age of 40 what exactly IBM does (or did), and the responses will be vague at best. “Something to do with computers, right?” was the best the Gen Zers I queried could come up with. If a Millennial knows anything about IBM, it’s Watson, the company’s prototype AI system that prevailed on Jeopardy in 2011. I find this attitude to be fairly trite and disingenuous. Maybe we should ask millennials and zoomers what exactly it is that Goldman Sachs does or Dow or Cisco or any other large company that doesn't sell majority direct to consumer and see if we get a more intelligible answer. Just because a company isn't selling to you specifically doesn't mean it's a failure. I'm happy to criticize IBM, but let's do it for legitimate reasons (trend chasing, perhaps?) and not "my 16 year old doesn't know what they do so they must not be relevant"

gtirloni 3y ago
IBM used to sell computers directly to consumers. They don't do that anymore so it's normal that IBM isn't on anyone's mind for a long time now. My mom knew IBM pretty well decades ago when she was a typist. Nowadays she wouldn't have a clue if IBM still exists or what it does.
- ghaff 3y ago
  If you go back before the IBM PC, the average consumer might well know they made typewriters and probably have some notion about them selling big computers to banks and the like. They'd almost certainly be vague on anything beyond that.
  - cafard 3y ago
    Fifty years ago, when I had nothing to do with the tech industry, I knew that IBM made computers. I didn't know what those computers looked like or who used them, but I knew they made them.
- mikestew 3y ago
  IBM used to sell computers directly to consumers. For a brief, maybe fifteen year period out of their 100 year history. And even those weren't big sellers. Point being, I don't know that it was ever reasonable to ask the "man on the street" what IBM does, and expect anything but a vague answer. Hell, my mother used to program their 370s and System/38s (precursor to the AS400). I haven't asked, but if asked the same question, I wouldn't be shocked if her answer were, "wait, they're still in business?"
  - bluedino 3y ago
    My grandmother has been retired for years, she worked as an accountant. Any time there's a conversation about computers, she'll pipe in with remarks about how "Compaq makes the best computers".
  - cbarrick 3y ago
    > For a brief, maybe fifteen year period out of their 100 year history. More like 34 years. The IBM PC debuted in 1981, and they sold their PC business to Lenovo in 2005. > And even those weren't big sellers. Still, let's not downplay the impact that the IBM PC had on the industry.
    - mikestew 3y ago
KerrAvon 3y ago
Article's paywalled, so apologies if this is out of context, but it seems like a legit point in this case. From the 1950's through the 90's IBM was familiar to consumers. You'd probably have used multiple IBM products at some point even if you didn't own one; you certainly knew about them. If nothing else, IBM typewriters and PCs were ubiquitous. That version of IBM is gone, and it seems reasonable to argue that this is a negative. (Whether or not you agree with it.)
cjbgkagh 3y ago
Gen Z is 1997-2012, aged from 11 to 26. It’s likely that the Gen Z they’re most experienced with are strongly biased to the 26 y/o end and that’s old enough to know a few things.
- alephnerd 3y ago
  IBM is still fairly active at job fairs. Most Gen Z CS/CE/EE majors will know of IBM because they applied there for a job or internship. They'd pay shit but if you had a beating pulse and attended the right college they'd hire you. A great backup option in the 2010s
wharvle 3y ago
I'm not sure it's so much criticism as observing that they've gone from being the Ford of computers to being... IDK, some parts manufacturer for cars that nobody's aware of unless they're in the industry.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
codexb 3y ago
I think the point is that IBM is ostensibly a "tech" company and most people in tech (young and old) have never dealt with them nor do they know any of their products. We vaguely remember seeing IBM-branded desktops decades 30+ years ago, but that's about it. Ask people about any large company in their own industry and they would know at least one of their products or services, and that includes Goldman Sachs, Dow, or Cisco.
- DebtDeflation 3y ago
  >most people in tech (young and old) have never dealt with them nor do they know any of their products It depends on how "working in tech" is defined. If you work in IT at a Fortune 500 bank, insurance company, telco, manufacturing company, etc. then you almost certainly Know who IBM, SAP, Oracle, etc. are. If you work for FAANGMULA and adjacent SV companies you probably don't especially if you are under 35 or so.
  - akaahduofjdr 3y ago
    Thats because FAANGMULA is mostly composed of media companies pretending to be tech companies. The business model is 100% a media and entertainment buisness model for most of the companies on that list. I don't think it is even controversial to argue this so long as we can agree that a company cannot call itself a tech company simply because they hired a lot of programmers and are paying them decent salaries. A tech company is a company that makes most of their money selling computer hardware and software products (and to a lesser extent, services and support for software and hardware products although it could be argued that is a different classification but with substantial overlap). Notably, it has to be computers, not entertainment delivered via computers, or ads delivered through computers, and not industrials or pharmaceuticals or any number of other "technical but not 'tech' as in computers" industries. Tech is and has always meant IT, as in companies that are in the information and computers businesses. Where programmers happen to work, make the highest salary, or be the most highly concentrated has never mattered.
    - lotsofpulp 3y ago
csydas 3y ago
I think this is overly critical and I'm not sure I can see the justification. My understanding from that quote is that IBM is a name that everyone "knows", but fewer and fewer persons actually know what IBM even does anymore or why IBM is a household name. Your additional examples aren't really counter examples most probably for most people; you've just listed additional companies that are likely common enough names that no one else outside the tech/finance sphere really knows why the name is a known name. I don't see this as disingenuous, I see as an accurate reflection of the modern interpretation of many of these older companies. Apple for example is "relatively" old(er), but you can ask anyone what you might get from Apple right now and probably they can name at least one thing like "oh yeah they make good phones" or "I like their laptops." My entire professional career has been in IT/Programming, and the best I can tell you about what IBM offers is "eh, you can pay a ton for a contract for some server hardware/software. Hardware support is fine, but the rest is a dice roll on what you're actually getting for your money." I don't associate IBM at this point with a specific service or product I'd seek so much as just "this is a tech company that you pay a ton of money to and hope it works out for your project". Though I will give them credit for their LTO tape hardware -- that is solid and straight forward enough for my tastes. My personal experience, half the time I talk to IBM sales team or even their engineering team, I end up with far more questions than answers, and I get the distinct impression I'm offending the IBM rep for even questioning what they're saying, no matter how ridiculous their statements are. I know what the words they're saying mean and I understand what the tech is, but when I have practical questions about their design choices or implementation guidance and the IBM employees act as if they resent me for questioning them, I too wonder why IBM is really trying to accomplish in our meetings -- do they want to sell something that will help with my problem scope or do they just want lock-in? This question isn't unique to IBM naturally, but if that's what ends up occupying my mind after a meeting with IBM representatives, I'm quite certain it's an indicator that it's not something I want my team to get wrapped up in. Edit: Changed "else outside the tech sphere" to "else outside the tech/finance sphere"
goalieca 3y ago
Millennial here: Rational rose and PowerPC. Both leave a stink in my mouth. And how could anyone in Canada forget the Phoenix pay system. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_pay_system https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_pay_system

hinkley 3y ago

IBM has a fondness for complexity that makes the current situation with cloud offerings look like children's toys. Their Global Services division could be summarized as a War on Kernighan's Law. Find clever people, and have them strain themselves to stand up a system so complex that you not only need to keep paying GS to show up and maintain it, but in fact you probably need to hire two more people just to keep the wheels on. That has made them many enemies on the technical side of things. People like me go out of our ways to sabotage any inroads they try to make because we know what will happen if we don't. Presentations of systems so complex you get a headache trying to wrap your mind around it. If we talk about it, it's not for long and with as few ears to overhear as possible. It's like guerilla warfare. Targeted attacks against a foe who could crush you like a bug if they knew where to find you. Oracle sniffing around is merely an irritation compared to the spectre of IBM GS getting their hooks into your CTO.

gtirloni 3y ago
Making thing simpler is hard. Any technical excellence at IBM is probably an island and definitely doesn't represent the rest of the company. In my time there, only one thing mattered: head count (or more precisely, body count). It didn't matter if those heads could think. It was all about closing outsourcing contracts and making a profit. With the occasional sprinkle of Watson propaganda sprinkled on top to make it look like you were at the pinnacle of computing. I'm surprised IBM still exists. I can't remember a single company that I worked for where IBM would have helped anything.
- hinkley 3y ago
  IBM isn’t just accidentally leaving things complex, they sell tools that fix problems almost nobody has. What’s that XML RPC gateway they were peddling years ago? Jesus Christ just use nginx and learn to manage certs.
  - saiya-jin 3y ago
    'Fond' memories for monstrosities like Websphere or MQ servers. Take trivial JMS or less-trivial-but-grokkable J2EE spec, add 10x more ultra-proprietary stuff that is very complex to grok compared to original spec, solves little on top in real world, makes you utterly vendor-locked in for every app until complete rewrite. You need additional Eclipse-based apps to work with it at all, and IIRC they were costly as hell too. Rinse and repeat. Then there was Weblogic, that worked as well and mostly by standards. Devs I met everywhere loved it.

cowpig 3y ago

This article is terribly written. It flows between strong claims like this one: > The company’s technological accomplishments are still recognizable as the forerunners of the digital era, yet its culture of social responsibility—a focus on employees rather than shareholders, restraint in executive compensation, and investment in anti-poverty programs—proved a dead end. And loose narrative, without ever tying the two together at all. How was this culture of social responsibility a "dead end" exactly? Oh, it's just a vibe. Let's talk about Watson family drama.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
projektfu 3y ago
I think it means they were losing money before they put Watson Jr. out to pasture and brought in the hatchet man Gerstner, who took millions per year and left after 13 years with a $189 million severance package. IBM seemed more successful by the early 2000s. I am not sure how the anti-poverty programs tie in but most likely they were just scrapped as no longer in fashion.

bcantrill 3y ago

To anyone interested in the history of IBM (and I think the TJ Watson Jr. era has many lessons to teach!), be sure to also read IBM and the Holocaust by Edwin Black. I read this recently -- and wished I had read it much earlier.[0] [0] https://bcantrill.dtrace.org/2023/11/26/what-punch-cards-teach-us-about-ai-risk/ https://bcantrill.dtrace.org/2023/11/26/what-punch-cards-tea...

not2b 3y ago
Yes, I was surprised that this article didn't mention that even though The Atlantic has written about it before.

GiorgioG 3y ago

My father in law worked for IBM in the 60s-90s in chip fab / manufacturing in NY. They used to make everything down to the screws that held the machines together, had their own paint shop, etc. By the time he left all of that was gone.

bruce511 3y ago
This is not uncommon in "new" industries. You see the same effect in cars and planes - in the early years the companies had to "do everything". Once scale is reached then companies appear that do "just on task", which then "take over" that task for the parent. This plays out at the small scale as well. When I started out writing commercial software it was very common to either sell a PC with it, or at least sell the concept of computerisation. For lots of companies this was their first computer. We were their defects IT department. 10 years goes past, and customers now already have computers. 10 more years and they have IT either on staff, or on contract. We got to go back to writing software. In the same way, yes, IBM needed to do everything. There was no off-the-shelf anything. So try make hardware, wrote software, sold services. And this is the point. IBM always existed to sell services. Everything else was to get them there. Other people made hardware. Others made software. They are left to focus on their services. This is likely revisionist history because I'm sure along the way lots of IBMers saw themselves as a hardware or software company. But I'm not sure that was ever the "core" idea. Those were just necessary to sell services, and were off-loaded along the way.
- zer00eyz 3y ago
  > This is not uncommon in "new" industries. You see the same effect in cars and planes - in the early years the companies had to "do everything". Once scale is reached then companies appear that do "just on task", which then "take over" that task for the parent. This is called vertical integration. It's not about "new" though it does crop up there. Amazon is an example of this: Chips for servers, warehouses, ships, vans for last mile... YKK zippers is another, they make their own equipment, refine raw materials all in an effort to have the best final product (and it shows). > And this is the point. IBM always existed to sell services. Everything else was to get them there. So the bit where IBM sold typewriters and time clocks in 1911 was all a big plot to sell software services someday? > 10 years goes past, and customers now already have computers. 10 more years and they have IT either on staff, or on contract. The failure of IBM is long, slow and tragic. It is a failure to evolve with the market, it is the gutting and miss management of core assets.

AlbertCory 3y ago

I nearly went to IBM. Fortunately I didn't. Their program for plant visits was the best of any of the companies I interviewed with: at the end of the day, they asked me to estimate all my expenses, and then they handed me an envelope of cash. Another legacy company book HN'ers would really like for a Christmas gift is "Bill & Dave" https://www.amazon.com/Bill-Dave-Hewlett-Packard-Greatest/dp/1591841526/ref=sr_1_1 https://www.amazon.com/Bill-Dave-Hewlett-Packard-Greatest/dp... the author is an unabashed fanboy, and the history ends with Mark Hurd before he imploded. Still, it's a great history of a (formerly) great company.

no_wizard 3y ago
how did Mark Hurd implode? I've never heard this before
- ghaff 3y ago
  A lot of his success was increasingly viewed as financial engineering that included things like really cutting back on research. He was eventually forced out over some expense picadillos that were presumably cover for the fact that the board just didn't want him there any more. (Or there may have been been other issues that AFAIK never came fully to light.)
  - nickpeterson 3y ago
    I'm pretty sure the reason for Mark Hurd's exit was for something quite different. https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/12/all-dirty-details-mark-hurds-sexual-misdeeds/333707/ https://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/12/all-dir...
    - ghaff 3y ago
      I wasn't paying much attention to HP by then as I had moved companies and roles. As I recall, everyone strongly suspected this kind of thing because the public reason for his departure at the time didn't really pass the sniff test. There was also a lot of boardroom and executive drama at HP before, during, and after Hurd's time there.

sllabres 3y ago

Particularly the Gen Z should know at least the IBM Mainframes

graycat 3y ago

I spent some time with IBM: Worked on the inside in an AI (artificial intelligence) project at their research lab and also outside -- sometimes a happy customer and sometimes fighting with IBM and being happy with other computer vendors. Here is how IBM worked when their approach worked well: They would have polished sales representatives (reps) who would get the confidence of a relatively high decision maker, commonly a CEO, also with contacts with the BOD, in an organization that had some serious data processing problems. The IBM rep would talk with the CEO (decision maker) about the problems and claim that IBM could implement a good solution. Commonly that was music to the ears of the CEO -- just give the leadership, design work, technical work and products of the solution to IBM. Generally we would regard IBM's charges as high, but in the target companies (1) IBM didn't have serious competition and (2) the company and their problem was so big that the IBM charges were worth it. With the business at a target customer, IBM worked hard, made sure the hard/software was highly reliable, and delivered good results. E.g., one customer was a medical insurance company. They had staffs in three time zones keying in medical claims applications. For this they had a mainframe computer, with their usual operating system, their network equipment ending with their 3270 terminals, COBOL-based (right, maybe PL/I, etc.) applications software, DB2 relational data base, etc. The system worked very well: A significant outage meant that to keep up with the work staff would have to be called back after hours and paid overtime. Soooo, it was important that the whole system had almost no downtime. Part of the approach was to have a test system and for any hard/software update, run it on the test system for some days before using the update for the real work. Both IBM and the customer were very serious. Uh, having to pay some overtime could cost the System Manager his bonus. Now, there are lots of options for data entry. PCs and even laptops can play a major role. The mainframes IBM was selling as computers were tiny and slow compared with nearly any desktop or laptop PC now. Having one PC out of hundreds+ quit does not have to be serious problem. Now lots of people and companies can set up serious, reliable, powerful computing installations, and IBM is no longer the only option. And the IBM target customer is no longer such a big part of computing.

jonathaneunice 3y ago

Another, contrarian perspective: I worked with IBM Fellows, CTOs, Distinguished Engineers, VPs, and divisional GMs for two decades, and they were sharp. Less than 1N on the CATRA scale sharp. Absolutely on par with folks I worked with Apple, HP, Intel, Microsoft, Oracle, Sun Microsystems, and IBM's competitors of the time. IBM's approach was indeed heavy-weight, and they loved complexifying things—but so did a lot of their customers in finance, aerospace, automotive, consumer goods, yadda yadda. IT operated by an entirely different business model and set of preferences in 1960–1990 than it did in 2000. It was the bespoke, pre-open standards, we'll handle all the edge cases in this lovingly homegrown solution era. The products were expensive, but in many cases solved technical operational problems that nothing else did. "Best of breed" was a common rallying cry; interchangeable parts and the virtues of utter standardization only came into prominence slowly. The world's very different now, and there was enormous tension inside IBM, and between IBM and its customers and competitors, evolving to where we are today. (The same was true of almost all the legacy competitors.) However real that tension, what worked in the Before Times was the cause, not that IBM only employed doofuses or brought Mongol Hordes and crappy technology to bear.

rqtwteye 3y ago
I worked at IBM Research in 2003 for a year. There were a ton of extremely bright people there. It was pretty cool to go around a corner and see an office that belonged to Benoit Mandelbrot. Another office had the name tag of one of the "Design Patterns" guys. But it felt like IBM Research was totally disconnected from the actual business of IBM. The switch away from pensions also seemed to make IBM way less attractive for new hires.
- EschatonCometh 3y ago
  I spent a couple of Summers in Yorktown Heights and even had lunch with Beniot a couple of times. To have the second largest super computer down the hall, an electron tunneling microscope, and beauty of the Hudson Valley seems like a bygone era. The innovation, patents, and persona were not enough to move the needle vs Silicon Valley.
- 3y ago

dakial1 3y ago

Worked at IBM for some time recently and I agree with many people here about the amazing technical talent there. Really bright people with deep understanding about their fields. I also worked with some very good project managers there, that can move very complex projects ahead like a maestro. IBM problem today is: 1) The bureaucracy and general organizational sluggishness created by years and years of policy over policy to avoid 1%, 2% risks that in the end impact 100% of the company. 2) the leadership, which mostly come from the commercial part of the firm and are "number cookers", who now how to play the forementioned bureaucracy and controls, moving around air to look like their are beating their targets. This makes the company extremely slow, unwilling to take risks, letting Google and Microsoft pass them repeatedly. Personal Computers, the Internet, Cloud Computing and now AI. IBM was at the right place on all of those opportunities, but its internal problems made it unable to take the right action to fetch them.

frozenport 3y ago
They were not in the right place. They were directly competing with the future of tech, in particular as it applied to personal use.
kayodelycaon 3y ago
They also axed an enormous number of experienced field-support techs and lost most of their institutional support knowledge in the process.
bane 3y ago
I worked for a startup that sold to IBM. My impression is that IBM has been in the business of responding to market needs by attempting to build the best possible technical solution that also drives customers to stay in the IBM sphere. However, what IBM forgot is that the market is big, and the market drives towards commoditization wherever it can. Any technical advancement that makes technology faster/cheaper is where the market will go -- even if it means compromising in other areas like up-time. IBM is, naturally, allergic to becoming a commodity and tries to drive to higher margin business. e.g. Mainframes, consultant heavy engagements, AI, etc. But the revolution that happened since the PC revolution, that commodity hardware and open source software (free in beer and freedom) could power companies both the size of IBM and in the same competitive space seems to be a lesson IBM has perpetually never quite gotten into their DNA. There's no "fixing" IBM. It will linger on momentum for a while until somebody else eventually just buys it for whatever IP they can squeeze out of it, dismembers the corpse, and spins out single purpose core businesses all in one excrement pile. It might take another decade or so, but it's coming.

hn8305823 3y ago

> Dick Watson was a much less rebellious character than Tom; he’d even permitted his father to accompany him and his bride on their honeymoon. 1) What

paulorlando 3y ago

I grew up near where IBM was started in a small town that had an IBM secret military project (top 10 bomb target for USSR!). While no one could tell me what they or their parents did at IBM, I heard some fun stories. One was about a guy who disliked people visiting his office, so he barricaded his door and would climb in and out through the transom window.

jamal-kumar 3y ago

IBM used to have a bunch of songs they'd get together to sing Here's a fun Christmas themed one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxFMV6tAg64 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxFMV6tAg64

m463 3y ago

I remember the original IBM "think pad": https://www.wired.com/2009/10/the-original-ibm-thinkpad-was-a-tablet/ https://www.wired.com/2009/10/the-original-ibm-thinkpad-was-... Before there even were computers, they gave out these small paper pads for jotting things down, with "THINK" on the cover.

Bayaz 3y ago

I don’t really have anything to contribute, but feel compelled to express how depressing it is to see IBM today. My first computer was an IBM PS/2 Model 25. It came with a budget version of the Model M keyboard, but without the number pad. It’s still the gold standard for how a keyboard should feel. If it wasn’t an IBM computer then it was a cheap clone. Later in life, I was inspired to go to law school because of the SCO vs IBM case, and the excellent lawyering by IBM’s counsel. Now, it’s like watching a zombie movie. I don’t even know what they do anymore.

akaahduofjdr 3y ago
I agree with you about this but have an even darker take in that I see the exact same lack of vision in every single large tech company out there today. I mean, IBM does actually sell hardware and software ...that's a lot more than you can say about some of the other big names out there. I have a theory that the death of the traditional computer company and it's buisness model, in the sense a company like an Oxide or IBM or Sun would understand the term "computer company", as well as the transition to the cloud for all new infrastructure, fundamentally changed the landscape in tech in a very negative way culturally speaking. The hyperspecialization of the industry and consolidation of hardware into a single dominant platform for most serious buisness computing needs, obviated the need for traditional engineering cultures. It's hardly any wonder that this same transition also was a transition towards Agile development methods (or rather a cheap imitation of them, if it was ever even intended to be some paradigm shift at all). The industry and the vibes I got were radically different and better even during ostensibly difficult times like right after dotcom.
- lotsofpulp 3y ago
  > I mean, IBM does actually sell hardware and software ...that's a lot more than you can say about some of the other big names out there. The other big names do, they just rent it instead of selling it. All the data centers/custom processors in cloud services are hardware and software, not to mention Apple’s hardware for consumers, and Microsoft’s surface tablets and Xbox, and Alphabet’s phones, Meta’s headsets, Nvidia’s GPUs, etc.
3y ago

mynameisnoone 3y ago

Unhumble brag: A PI at IBM Almaden tried to hire me as a paid dark matter research assistant ~1994. Plot twist: I wasn't old enough to drive much less take a gig because parental units and school were involved between the ages of 15.5 and 18. Awesome brag: The road leading to the IBM Almaden front gate was fun to bike down.

anjel 3y ago

Spilling some beer for the Model M buckling spring keyboard, an evolutionary dead for no good reason. (Unicomp is not equivalent)