2 ms·
But I don't think it is? IBM is, in essence, irrelevant. It keeps milking legacy customers, but it has no competitive edge otherwise. Microsoft was never this
by doe_eyes 2y ago
But I don't think it is? IBM is, in essence, irrelevant. It keeps milking legacy customers, but it has no competitive edge otherwise.
Microsoft was never this far gone. PG was proclaiming their death because startups no longer feared them. But they no longer fear Google either, not the way they used to. Google's last truly disruptive and unexpected projects - Android, Chrome, Maps, Docs, etc - happened 15+ years ago. Now, the company sticks to established niches instead of trying to constantly reinvent themselves (or when they try, they almost always fail).
There's a spectrum between "dead" and "taking on the world".
- pjmlp 2y agoAn irrelevance that powers Linux, Java, Red-Hat, GCC, Eclipse, Go,...
- doe_eyes 2y agoI mean, yes? IBM is profitable and is spending some of its money on projects we all benefit from - just like Microsoft, Google, Oracle, Apple, and just about any other larger tech company out there. That doesn't mean that their core business is on a healthy trajectory. Transmeta was paying Linus' salary for a good while, it didn't save them.
- pjmlp 2y agoPlenty of Y Combinator companies dream of being 1% as healthy as IBM in 2024.