4 ms·

People have been writing off IBM for decades. If you go back to the early nighties IBM had two or years in a row where it's annual losses where bigger than som

by jussij 13y ago

People have been writing off IBM for decades. If you go back to the early nighties IBM had two or years in a row where it's annual losses where bigger than some countries total income and their share price fell under the $20 mark. That was around the time with the clone PC where taking off and everyone was predicted the end of IBM and big iron. Move on 30 years and their share price is now back over $200.

seanmcdirmid 13y ago
Let's just focus on today and Cringley's articles. If you can find something wrong with his articles, where something isn't factual, please let me know. But what IBM has been doing: cutting R&D for short term gains rather than long term ones is going to have to consequences later down the line. Also, they are betting big on India at the expense of tech talent in the states...I'm not sure if this will pan out. IBM has a hyper focus in optimizing their share price due to the talent they acquired from PwC; I would say, its more like PwC acquired IBM due to the cultural changes that followed (not that IBM was already dysfunctional, they were all too easy to convince of this). But really, how long can this last? Eventually they are expected to do great things to justify their valuation, and all the news suggests that they have no capabilities at all to do such; they just cut and cut!
- jussij 13y ago
  Guess how they got out of trouble in the early 90s: January 17, 1993 The announcement by International Business Machines, whose corporate world headquarters are in Armonk, that this year it was cutting 25,000 more jobs worldwide and reducing its budget for research, development and engineering by $1 billion may signify that the company will have to initiate the first layoffs in its history. Up to now the company has used voluntary means like job buyouts and early retirement to eliminate jobs. http://www.nytimes.com/1993/01/17/nyregion/ibm-weighs-possibility-of-job-layoffs.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm http://www.nytimes.com/1993/01/17/nyregion/ibm-weighs-possib... Seem familiar?
  - seanmcdirmid 13y ago
    I did my first IBM intern stint at Boca in 1995 (my second at Hawthorne in 2000). Many of the people laid off were hired back, then laid off again. It was definitely a very messed up time (incidentally, OS/2 was moved from Boca to Austin in early 1996 while I was there, many people moving but many laid off). They didn't really get out of trouble with the 1993 lay offs. IBM culture back then was pretty toxic, and there was a lot of dead weight to lay off. It makes sense that many of those job could easily be moved to India, yeh for them! But now...even the high-end tech people who worked there are moving on to less toxic companies like Google. What's left? A bunch of consultants and a huge insourcing operation in India?

by jussij 13y ago

seanmcdirmid 13y ago

Let's just focus on today and Cringley's articles. If you can find something wrong with his articles, where something isn't factual, please let me know. But what IBM has been doing: cutting R&D for short term gains rather than long term ones is going to have to consequences later down the line. Also, they are betting big on India at the expense of tech talent in the states...I'm not sure if this will pan out. IBM has a hyper focus in optimizing their share price due to the talent they acquired from PwC; I would say, its more like PwC acquired IBM due to the cultural changes that followed (not that IBM was already dysfunctional, they were all too easy to convince of this). But really, how long can this last? Eventually they are expected to do great things to justify their valuation, and all the news suggests that they have no capabilities at all to do such; they just cut and cut!

jussij 13y ago
Guess how they got out of trouble in the early 90s: January 17, 1993 The announcement by International Business Machines, whose corporate world headquarters are in Armonk, that this year it was cutting 25,000 more jobs worldwide and reducing its budget for research, development and engineering by $1 billion may signify that the company will have to initiate the first layoffs in its history. Up to now the company has used voluntary means like job buyouts and early retirement to eliminate jobs. http://www.nytimes.com/1993/01/17/nyregion/ibm-weighs-possibility-of-job-layoffs.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm http://www.nytimes.com/1993/01/17/nyregion/ibm-weighs-possib... Seem familiar?
- seanmcdirmid 13y ago
  I did my first IBM intern stint at Boca in 1995 (my second at Hawthorne in 2000). Many of the people laid off were hired back, then laid off again. It was definitely a very messed up time (incidentally, OS/2 was moved from Boca to Austin in early 1996 while I was there, many people moving but many laid off). They didn't really get out of trouble with the 1993 lay offs. IBM culture back then was pretty toxic, and there was a lot of dead weight to lay off. It makes sense that many of those job could easily be moved to India, yeh for them! But now...even the high-end tech people who worked there are moving on to less toxic companies like Google. What's left? A bunch of consultants and a huge insourcing operation in India?