> 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

> 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.