4 ms·

Google would not be able to create any of the products now that made it what it is today. It's the classic IBM playbook.

pjmlp 3y ago
IBM still makes enough research in quantum, AI, patents, and contributions to the Linux ecosystem, that many startup founders on HN can only dream of.
- squiffsquiff 3y ago
  And which of those is a marketable IBM product that 'normal' people have heard of? Red Hat was an acquisition.
  - pjmlp 3y ago
    The money to acquire Red Hat came from somewhere, which is also beyond many startups accomplishments. Money in the bank doesn't care if it comes from stuff 'normal' people is aware of, or something else. Just like despite all issues, many here won't be aware Bell Labs and UNIX legacy now belong to Nokia. Or how many Linux projects depend on Oracle and Microsoft money, as per contributors on their salaries.
  - dangus 3y ago
    Just because they don't sell consumer products doesn't mean that their products aren't marketable. In the case of research and semiconductor technology, typically IBM isn't out to deliver a finished product, they work with other companies who bring the end result to market. E.g., there's a joint venture between Intel and IBM to advance Intel's fabrication capabilities. When you think of IBM as more of an R&D consulting company or custom enterprise application company it starts to make more sense. To some extent they also have an off-the-shelf product lineup, but most of the reasons to choose them involve custom solutions. Example of a $700 million contract with Disney: https://www.computerworld.com/article/2555832/ibm-signs--730m-it-services-deal-with-disney.html https://www.computerworld.com/article/2555832/ibm-signs--730...
    - justinclift 3y ago
      > Example of a $700 million contract with Disney That looks like a fairly straight forward outsourcing / "consulting" contract rather than anything to do with R&D.
      - dangus 3y ago
        I understand that. I’m just pointing out that IBM isn’t some fly by night failure of a company just because they don’t make brand name products that every tech enthusiast and practitioner is using. Their R&D is basically structured like a consulting gig in itself. They help people like Nvidia and Intel deliver on their products. There are some extremely popular tech stacks like Docker and Hashicorp led by companies that are struggling to be profitable. The whole reason those technologies are popular is because they are free or cheap. Then as soon as the company starts to tighten the screws and monetize their user base, the user base crumbles. IBM’s Disney contract is about double the size of Hashicorp’s annual revenue.
- rcbdev 3y ago
  Do not delude yourself - IBM is surviving off of grifting big legacy IBM Technology and public sector contracts through their Consulting arm (...which they also bought, off of PwC) and near-/off-shoring. Most "Quantum Ambassadors" and similar are funded thanks to benevolence/nepotism of local management since they do not create billable hours or maintenance contracts. Adding to that, IBM's rolling out suffocating utilization targets for their employees in more and more countries which will take care of that as well. It's a dying company.
  - pjmlp 3y ago
    Plenty of HN Y Combinator candidates would love to be dying like that.
    - rcbdev 3y ago
      I doubt most YC founders want to end up managing glorified software sweatshops with an attached patent mill.
      - pjmlp 3y ago
        That would assume they even manage to stay at least one century in business.
        rcbdev 3y ago
        Yes - IBM has mastered the art of dying very slowly. Congratulations.
- poisonborz 3y ago
  I don't think startup founders dream of those metrics. But IBM has a healthy profit as well. Still it is an empty shell of its former self, selling (among many venerated B2B products) snake oil like Watson and design thinking. Beyond the husk of its brand, it is a generic, irrelevant, boring IT company.
- ViktorRay 3y ago
  The IBM of today isn’t what I think the other commenter was referring to. In the 1970’s IBM was a behemoth. Yet IBM of that time was unable to translate that success meaningfully to personal PCs. In the realm of the personal PC it was Intel and Microsoft that dominated. Similarly the Microsoft of the 2000’s was a behemoth that failed to translate that success to mobile computing. I believe the other poster was trying to say that Google of today is like IBM of the 70’s or Microsoft of the 2000’s. That being said IBM is different today than it was even a couple decades ago and Microsoft has changed a lot in recent years so maybe Google could become innovative again.

pjmlp 3y ago

IBM still makes enough research in quantum, AI, patents, and contributions to the Linux ecosystem, that many startup founders on HN can only dream of.

squiffsquiff 3y ago
And which of those is a marketable IBM product that 'normal' people have heard of? Red Hat was an acquisition.
- pjmlp 3y ago
  The money to acquire Red Hat came from somewhere, which is also beyond many startups accomplishments. Money in the bank doesn't care if it comes from stuff 'normal' people is aware of, or something else. Just like despite all issues, many here won't be aware Bell Labs and UNIX legacy now belong to Nokia. Or how many Linux projects depend on Oracle and Microsoft money, as per contributors on their salaries.
- dangus 3y ago
  Just because they don't sell consumer products doesn't mean that their products aren't marketable. In the case of research and semiconductor technology, typically IBM isn't out to deliver a finished product, they work with other companies who bring the end result to market. E.g., there's a joint venture between Intel and IBM to advance Intel's fabrication capabilities. When you think of IBM as more of an R&D consulting company or custom enterprise application company it starts to make more sense. To some extent they also have an off-the-shelf product lineup, but most of the reasons to choose them involve custom solutions. Example of a $700 million contract with Disney: https://www.computerworld.com/article/2555832/ibm-signs--730m-it-services-deal-with-disney.html https://www.computerworld.com/article/2555832/ibm-signs--730...
  - justinclift 3y ago
    > Example of a $700 million contract with Disney That looks like a fairly straight forward outsourcing / "consulting" contract rather than anything to do with R&D.
    - dangus 3y ago
      I understand that. I’m just pointing out that IBM isn’t some fly by night failure of a company just because they don’t make brand name products that every tech enthusiast and practitioner is using. Their R&D is basically structured like a consulting gig in itself. They help people like Nvidia and Intel deliver on their products. There are some extremely popular tech stacks like Docker and Hashicorp led by companies that are struggling to be profitable. The whole reason those technologies are popular is because they are free or cheap. Then as soon as the company starts to tighten the screws and monetize their user base, the user base crumbles. IBM’s Disney contract is about double the size of Hashicorp’s annual revenue.
rcbdev 3y ago
Do not delude yourself - IBM is surviving off of grifting big legacy IBM Technology and public sector contracts through their Consulting arm (...which they also bought, off of PwC) and near-/off-shoring. Most "Quantum Ambassadors" and similar are funded thanks to benevolence/nepotism of local management since they do not create billable hours or maintenance contracts. Adding to that, IBM's rolling out suffocating utilization targets for their employees in more and more countries which will take care of that as well. It's a dying company.
- pjmlp 3y ago
  Plenty of HN Y Combinator candidates would love to be dying like that.
  - rcbdev 3y ago
    I doubt most YC founders want to end up managing glorified software sweatshops with an attached patent mill.
    - pjmlp 3y ago
      That would assume they even manage to stay at least one century in business.
      - rcbdev 3y ago
        Yes - IBM has mastered the art of dying very slowly. Congratulations.
poisonborz 3y ago
I don't think startup founders dream of those metrics. But IBM has a healthy profit as well. Still it is an empty shell of its former self, selling (among many venerated B2B products) snake oil like Watson and design thinking. Beyond the husk of its brand, it is a generic, irrelevant, boring IT company.
ViktorRay 3y ago
The IBM of today isn’t what I think the other commenter was referring to. In the 1970’s IBM was a behemoth. Yet IBM of that time was unable to translate that success meaningfully to personal PCs. In the realm of the personal PC it was Intel and Microsoft that dominated. Similarly the Microsoft of the 2000’s was a behemoth that failed to translate that success to mobile computing. I believe the other poster was trying to say that Google of today is like IBM of the 70’s or Microsoft of the 2000’s. That being said IBM is different today than it was even a couple decades ago and Microsoft has changed a lot in recent years so maybe Google could become innovative again.