The Decline of IBM
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 9 мар 2020
- This video is meant to be a documentary to be enjoyed in one or more sittings. The question answered is: Why did International Business Machines decline?
Timestamps:
The Backdrop 1983-1993 (Was it really a mistake to go with Microsoft and Intel?) : 2:24
Lou Gerstner Years: 1993 - 2001 (IBM is a top player in everything tech!): 5:38
Sam Palmisano Years: 2002 to 2011 (Continuing the Gerstner Vision and missing the cloud!): 18:52
Ginni Rometty Years: 2012 to 2020 (Continuing the Gerstner vision and cutting costs!): 26:13
The Future and Arvind Krishna: 2020 to present (A bright future?): 32:34
What we can say is that despite the company still ranking as one of the largest companies in the world, it used to be the largest, touching many aspects of a consumer’s life. Today, IBM is a Business to Business (B2B) company that has been surpassed by many tech rivals including, Google, Apple, Amazon, Facebook. How did that happen?
Many people think IBM declined because of decisions in the 1980s where it licensed software from Microsoft and used Intel’s chips. This logic is flawed; coopetition is a good thing and technological innovation happens quicker when many people and companies work together. In addition, the Personal Computer (PC) was coming whether IBM was ready for it or not-therefore these partnerships allowed IBM to get its PC to market earlier than it would have otherwise. Of course, you could then push the mistake further back and say IBM invested too heavily in mainframes and not enough in PC’s, in the 1970’s, forcing it to partner with Microsoft and Intel. This lack of investment in the 1970’s was a mistake, but companies are allowed to make some mistakes.
Furthermore, IBM had ample opportunities to still win in these and many other markets. So, despite IBM falling behind in the PC market, at the start of the 1990’s, it was so much larger than many other tech companies, in terms of size, R&D spending and dominance, that it should have become the king again. It didn’t.
This is why our video focuses on IBM’s CEO’s and product decisions under Louis Gerstner, Sam Palmisano and Ginni Rometty. These CEO’s turned IBM from a tech giant into more of a services-oriented business. What these CEO’s, also, forgot is that the secret sauce of IBM’s services was that it was viewed much more favorably than other services company as it was renowned for its technology. Therefore, underinvesting in tech eventually also hurt is services business.
Despite all this negativity, optimistically, we are excited with who IBM chose as its CEO in 2020, Arvind Krishna may turn around IBM. We hope you enjoyed our video!
The Music in the video is the following:
1) Which Way Is Up? 1:59 Silent Partner Dance & Electronic | Dramatic
2) Gently, Onwards 3:27 ELPHNT Cinematic | Calm
3) Apprehensive at Best 0:03 / 1:42 Biz Baz Studio Cinematic | Dark
4) If I Had a Chicken 0:02 / 2:30 Kevin MacLeod Cinematic | Happy
5) White Hats 0:03 / 1:46 Wayne Jones Cinematic | Dark
6) Follow The Shadows 0:02 / 2:46 The 126ers Pop | Sad
Documentary videos:
Shopify: • What is Shopify?
KraftHeinz • The History of Kraft H...
Disney • The Rise of Disney - H...
General Electric • The Fall of General El...
Stamps.com • Video
Legacy of Jim Simons: • The Story of Jim Simon...
Paper money series: • America's First Paper ...
Patreon: / themarketisopen
Twitter: / themarketisopen
The Best Stock Market Website on the Internet: themarketisopen.com
Second channel: TMIO Tesla / @tmiotesla
Disclaimer: We are not financial advisers, and nothing on this channel is meant to be financial advice. The ideas expressed on this channel are purely opinions and should not be regarded as objective information. Nothing on this channel is a recommendation to buy or sell securities. Do not assume that facts and numbers in any video are accurate. Always do your own due diligence.
This video is meant to be a documentary, enjoyed in one or more sittings, and we hope you enjoy. We go through IBM’s decline from the 1980’s until today. Despite all the negativity in the video, we are actually optimistic of IBM’s future prospects because of who it chose as its next CEO. Let us know who you think led to IBM’s decline and can Arvind Krishna turn the business around?
Time stamps:
The Backdrop 1983-1993 (Was it really a mistake to go with Microsoft and Intel?) : 2:24
Lou Gerstner Years: 1993 - 2001 (IBM is a top player in everything tech!): 5:38
Sam Palmisano Years: 2002 to 2011 (Continuing the Gerstner Vision and missing the cloud!): 18:52
Ginni Rometty Years: 2012 to 2020 (Continuing the Gerstner vision and cutting costs!): 26:13
The Future and Arvind Krishna: 2020 to present (A bright future?): 32:34
I was working at IBM UK Hursley Laboratories in 88-89 and what I saw going on there now looks to me like a huge IP rip-off by IBM employees following the US Military/Intelligence revolving door pattern where employees leave with tech developed at IBM and set up startups which may/may not contract back to IBM. One of those things developed at IBM was something that looked quite a lot like Windows NT! (I wrote a lot of it in 1989).
I was a tech journalist in the 90s and what they did to Lotus was so so sad. Till this day, I think their office package (Lotus SmartSuite) was very trend setting.
Worked there for 26 years... they have the smartest and most dedicated people in business BUT the senior executives have betrayed the IBM legacy and have no understanding of where the value of the company really WAS. They are completely run by bean counters who have no vision for what the company could actually do and have competence in not losing money - at the expense of market share and future growth. They wreck EVERY acquisition they make because they drain it in 2-3 years of any innovation or good (Lotus, Tivoli, PWC, I could go on... buy a company to boost the stock, don't give it money to dominate the market but suck it dry and kill it with neglect). The last few iterations of chief executives have been chasing the approval of the finance analyst crowds - Ginny let the finance people lead her by the nose. You couldn't get a nickel of investment unless you can guarantee a 2 year ROI of more than 15% because that's what a dollar returned to the shareholders as dividend or share buybacks. When you are more focused on the earnings, there is no innovation. You can't fire all the smart local employees with the experience of the client and replace them with Indians who use it as a 2 year stepping stone to another job - you have no value proposition in the services business if you don't understand your client and those clients quickly realized they could hire their own Indians or go with some cheaper firm that could do the same thing. You sell off the Hardware that gave you advantage and customer reach because you couldn't hit the profit targets, you kill off the foundries that gave you competitive differentiation because you couldn't afford the capital investment because you were too busy buying back stock to satisfy the quarter by quarter investment crowds. You refuse to build and invest in data centres because they are too capital intensive and take a decade to pay off... Sorry, but the "hybrid" cloud vision is the same as it' been for the last 10 years... different names, same strategy. Not going to work - if the CIA can run on Amazon, so can business - and they KNOW it.. Hybrid cloud is for the remaining 10% of the hard stuff that is VERY easy to lose money on and that Amazon and Microsoft want no part of it for good reason. Love the people, hate what the company has become.
There is a Rumor that IBM might end up getting acquired by Microsoft by 2023 to help boost Microsoft in the areas you mentioned they are lacking (and vise versa!) while also giving Microsoft a small bump in Clients/Customers this would also make MS look far more reliable then AWS in the US Defense Cloud Computing Bid if not this time then for the next bid!!!!
Ian Grant i8
This is why financial types shouldn't be allowed to run technology focused companies. They almost never seem to understand the actual product and focus almost entirely on cutting 'expenses' (by cutting R&D and outsourcing everything) and maximising profit margins over maintaining pace of innovation that the company was founded on
Unfortunately it is not just tech companies. This is happening to almost every public company. Successfully growing a business, especially one that is mature, is hard and requires careful planning and even better execution. If you're a newly hired CEO why bother? You'll likely only last two or three years anyway. Just start firing people and make that bottom line shine come earnings day. Collect huge bonuses and share grants all along the way. By the time your bad decisions start to come to light, it will be time to move on to the next company. The legacy of "Chainsaw" Al Dunlap lives on.
Case in point: Boeing
Yup. Decades of dividends and share buybacks, then when disruption is demanded "Durp we haff no mone"
And even more importantly, we should not elect non-technically competent politicians. Hence this is the meaning of my identity - "Vote Scientist"
For finance guys dabbling in tech-focused companies and unfortunately mixing it with the concepts of Lean and six sigma, "salaries and employee expenditures come under "Muda" ( a terminology used in lieu of "waste"... just to make it sound better). Do the math...
When a company switches its strategy from innovation to cost cutting, you know they have no ideas left in them. A horrible sign of things to come.
The sad thing is that IBM had all the big brains working for them in the 70's and 80's. OS/2 should have beaten the pants off MIcrosoft, but the bean counters didn't seem to care.
IBM has historically not profited off its innovation to the extend other firms have, their innovation has been misallocated, at the beginning of the video they spent all their resources on mainframes to be almost crushed by personal computers, these are business descissions.
It's hard to define IBM's distinctive competence. Even if you do, it must be a competence with such large market impact and attraction as to sustain a behemoth's continued profitability.
@@k_zildjian4460 Indeed - but Microsoft ultimately had critical mass of software and hardware drivers. OS/2 (especially Merlin) was obviously _technically_ superior. But well.... same goes for BeOS, which to this day I regret did not become macOS X.
OS/2 was a little too forward looking in some ways. It consumed the resources of an operating system five years in the future and didn't take printing seriously. It most often gets compared to DOS/Win16 but a more relevant comparison is to the Windows NT 3.x series, which had a common codebase. For example, HPFS and NTFS are based on the same code. With this comparison, the hardware/software support issue is much less dire because NT supported hardly anything, either. I don't know how to verify this or if it's even true but I heard 90s tech trade shows featured enthusiastic techy Microsoft employees giving away Visual Studio and Windows devkits while smug IBM businessmen were selling OS/2 materials for $500+ dollars.
I just started at IBM this year and this is the introduction they never mentioned in the orientation . Thanks
Best of luck, have an exit strategy.
Keep the faith, its a battle of good versus evil. Stay with IBM
@@bitcoinog3713 I never told them about my youtube channel, but my experience is rather okay but instead of writing code they have me doing call center shit. im not happy.
@An War I dont understand your comment seem like you need to ellllllaborate
@An War Your comment to @Savage Scientist is absolutely uncalled for and shows what’s wrong with our society today. You don’t know this guy and yet feel you can judge his intelligence just because he didn’t see the other side of an organization he recently joined. Most people who work in companies don’t see the “dark side” of those organizations, not because they are thick but because there are more positive reviews of most large companies than negative reviews...it’s got nothing to do with intellectual ability
Their big mistake was only trying to make money. Making money is a side effect of making good products.
That's why IBM just killed CentOS project - to sell RHEL subscriptions....
Americans have forgotten that concept. Hence all the MBAs.
Someone once asked the head of Toyota how much his Toyota stock was worth. He said - I have no idea. If I started paying attention to that, quality would decline.
@@exilesurvivor1053 what do you mean? profits have never been this high.
IBM made the same mistake HP and Boeing made... they turned the companies over to the bean counters...
Experts in counting their own beans in particular
Chicks, man... chicks !!!!
Bingo!
Yup totally. I worked for them until 2000 (for about 12 years). They pursued shares buy backs, margins improvements, cost reductions, and everything services! Even their recent Redhat acquisition is for services. They make partnerships with new hi-tech companies but they just want IBM's services. Their revenue keeps decreasing but with buybacks their profit margins keep growing. So for a little while, stock investors like them. But the emperor had no clothes. They noticed that their revenue is not growing at all. Whenever margins is all there is, you know the company is being driven by stock investors and bean counters! Whatever tech leadership they have, it is gone and no one cares anymore. So whenever you see a company pursuing margins, and doing what the stock buyers are telling them to do (lots of buybacks and margins), RUN away from that company. That company is no longer pursuing anything except just as a mechanism for increasing stock price with no growth. And don't listen to all those "investors" for criticizing that a company is growing but no or little profit (yes something to watch for of course but you got to dig deeper to find out why), those guys just want money for themselves (quick turnarounds) and cannot care less for the future of that company or in general tech leadership/value.
@@gb032645thank good comentario educacional sobre las materia prima del gas indrutial.ere un genio fabuloso
As a former R/D, it was sad to see the company changing after Sam's leadership. We invented a lot of stuff, common today way early but it got killed before reaching to the market. Giving the helm to sales/marketing was the worst thing one could do.
But... but we need to focus on our strengths! (Commissions.)
To be fair sales and marketing can work together with R&D! Just sad to hear about this
The main problem is that while R&D employees are usually idealistic, hard-working people the sales/marketing are typically egocentric individuals only looking at the financial bottom line and their sales bonus, they dont care about the product.
@@Manowarmx3 Wrong. Marketing works for unqualified customers. If you are competing in the professional market, the only way to sell is making actually quality product. Professional customers will find you no matter how little you spend on commercials.
I was a young man working as an executive secretary in the Education Department at IBM Las Colinas in Texas in 1981 when they released the PC. Your documentary is excellent, but I would add that IBM squandered valuable resources, such as employee time. My last day there, for instance, two secretaries spent all day trying to determine if an internal memo could be labelled as both "Personal" and "Confidential." Executives would not sign the documents we typed for them unless we placed them very carefully in hand-made albums from Germany. Nothing was ever simple.
The clásico internacional comercial for familiar beneficio
It is still the case till today
"The Men in the Gray Flannel Suits" is what IBM employees were known as. It was a given if you got a job at IBM you had a job for life. Then in the 1980's IBM had their first layoffs in history. That changed the security of every working person in the US. Today 2/3 of IBM employees are in India.
And though they're very sharp (tech savvy) in India/Brazil they're not 'Over Here' where the majority of the data storage and recovery clients are. Though they DO speak English - the proficient speakers often aren't the ones a client OR an IBM platform support tech can speak with. I finally gave-up and handed the phone to a tech who was born and RAISED in India and even HE couldn't decipher what the Mumbai employee was saying!
As a former IBM employee, I learned that the middle management was totally responsible for its downfall. It is overburdened with bureaucratic delays for everything it does, and it must add corporate overhead to every contract...a sure path to extinction to support this unneeded expense.
@@SIGMA_CENTRAL_IKON Wow! Amazing insight!
These are usually the reasons given by middle management. Most of the time, they are the actual cause of the whole issues. Too many middle management, most working in front of a PC and know nothing about customers need!
Former IBMer too- I completely agree . What an ass kissing culture
@@ednan9 My thoughts exactly. I was a very low position but could not understand why it was all about kissing ass. It made me sick lol. I worked hard and did a great job but wasnt kissing enough ass, so I walked the hell outta there without notice.
@@SIGMA_CENTRAL_IKON I know plenty of people that refuse to work for an Indian manager if they were trained in India. On the other hand I have worked for and with Indians that trained in the US and have thrown off the hierarchal attitude that is prevalent in Indian organizations and have become good managers.
As an ex techie it amazed me when people with no knowledge of the technology behind the products become CEOs. Scully, Whitman, and Gerstner come to mind. But I’ve seen many others and almost always didn’t turn out well.
In fact this is basically in all layers of IBM management now a day. Everything is dollars and cents. Even in the services team.
There are reasons behind the madness. These bean counters were picked to "maximize shareholder values" (including splitting up and selling the company by pieces) instead of building the world's best technology company.
That's a fine line.. you also don't want someone who is so mired in the tech that they lose vision of what SHOULD happen vs what *can* happen. That's what Jobs excelled at.. knowing what was already possible, but being creative and demanding enough to push products beyond the unexplored boundary.
FWIW, Gerstner's degree was in EE. I met him a few times when I was working at IBM and can assure you he was VERY clued-in.
@A waterfall Fiorina once took a sharp jab at Dell Inc. "I think there is a reason they took the word computer out of their name," Fiorina said. "They're not a technology company. I think they're a distribution company." www.eweek.com/pc-hardware/fiorina-takes-swings-at-dell-ibm
I worked in Services for many years. Made lots of great friends and connections, but rarely found any good managers. Worked my ass off but never got any recognition. The culture was toxic and I regret not leaving earlier.
damn now i don't wanna apply on ibm seems like the same case even if it's different countries
I was with ibm gbs at some of the times that were mentioned here. The point of no return was the aquisition of pwc, which changed the mindset of ibm from „excellence“ and customer focus to „cost cutting“ and shareholder focus. Thus many investments were cut, not only in research, but also in product development and market visibility...
then cane the worst, what happened in many companies, people were not seen as a competitive advantage with their skills and experience, but as a cost factor that needs to be cut to favour the shareholders. In a services based company, where people are the „products“ and the „production“ this is deadly on mid term.
The brain drain was too big, the loss in reputation from potential customers too high,
there is no one left to recover ibm.
Not on the front, where it counts,
you can be the greatest general, if you have no soldiers to fight....
On top of that some pwc chutiyas riding up the ladders to VPs and partners..
pwc is literally a bean counting firm.
Rometty hired her brother-in-law as a major executive running the cloud business in 2014. He had no experience in cloud. IBM has come under fire for corporate governance over the years, yet this nepotism got through and was never questioned. IBM struggled to put its cloud business into a higher ranking, and failed.
Actually IBM has done pretty well in cloud with their large enterprise customers. Note that all vendors and companies like Gartner measures cloud performance based on number of cloud subscriptions sold not on revenue generated. You and I can purchase cloud storage and that counts as a subscription sold. IBM has customers that spend tens of millions on cloud storage and hosted applications. Not to mention hundreds of millions on hardware and software used in hybrid cloud.
The replacement of Rometty with Krishna and the purchase of Red Hat are two positives for cloud growth, including a strong enterprise showing, but they are relatively recent compared to past missteps. This video is about history of the company, including under Rometty.
@@treojoe1077 More precisely, the top cloud provider, right now, by revenue, is MS, not AWS - but that's most likely only because MS includes Office 365 in its cloud reporting. IBM, however, is third - by a large margin, but still, ahead of Google, by several billion dollars.
yeah but they purchased redhat. That pretty much fixes it
@@a0flj0 All true. But like I said, in some cases the comparisons used by vendors and analysts are meaningless when they use number of subscriptions sold as a measurement as opposed to actual revenue generated.
It's kind of like when analysts in tech magazines would say something like MS sold 100k licenses of Windows this month and then compare that to IBMs 30k install base. They don't take into account that IBM is selling a monthly hardware lease, MLC and S&S where even the smallest shop is paying 10s of thousands per month or millions per year. I'm not using real figures here but you get the picture. To most people the comparison is misleading.
Very good video, but trying to pin it all on the CEOs that ran IBM into the ground is missing the bigger story. IBM culture (anyone who ever worked there or worked with IBM on a project knows what I am referring to) has been totally rotten up and down the entire management chain for a very long time. Most people who worked (not managed people) at IBM were very good people and very smart. Great ideas were created and developed in IBM's world-class research division and never became a reality due to the fact that the company was run (at all levels) by lawyers and MBA's who wouldn't know a great idea if it hit them on the head. People who know what IBM actually is internally know that the acronym actually stands for Idiots Become Managers.
Like most large companies today. A sad state of affairs.
Never understood why companies are eager to hire MBAs (except the obvious) as most are - in the practical world -a negative force. ....
IBM's financial record states they have been quite profitable although they did miss quite a lot of tech innovations such as personal computers and mobile devices.
I was there for 13 and a half years, consistent PBC 1, nowhere to go. Got the hell out of there in 2018, before I was RA'd myself. Discovered the IT world is years ahead of IBM out there.
I used to meet a lot of retired IBM'ers when I did ADSL installs for for BellSouth in Boca Raton in the late 90's. They seemed to have the same take on IBM: their inner structure would pretty much guarantee that they would eventually get rolled by the Microsofts and Ciscos of the world.
Moral of the story....Never hire someone whose background is in snack cakes run your tech company
And Cigarettes - although those IBM Keyboards were addictive
@@layton3503 Someone's still selling a replica. I'm not sure it's all metal though. And you can buy a click sound taken from that keyboard.
@@layton3503 Unicomp still sells buckling spring keyboards for ~100-200 USD
@@charlesc.9012 I know they are supposed to be the same, but they are really not the same as those Lexmark, or IBM branded ones that I am thinking of.
Today I run IBM... tomorrow Boeing... next day Playboy... after that, Mattel... I'm a genius, you see.
As a former data engineer from IBM, I approve this video
This is the most thorough and education IBM video on the internet! Wow keep it up!
I joined IBM in January 2001 as a Band 9, Senior IT Architect in GTS SO (then called SDC). In 2014 I was promoted to a Band 10, Executive IT Archect in 2014, and ended up working in the Technology, Innovation and Automation group. I was laid off as part of a Resource Action In June 2020, just 6 months shy of my 20 year anniversary with the company. By the time I was released, I had been looking over my shoulder for multiple years, not trusting management or the company day to day. I watched the company shrink, evolve and move away from the thing that kept the company floating for many years. Their current cloud services focus will do nothing more than pigeon-hole the company into the ranks of also-ran organizations in the world cloud market. The loss of technical mastery and leadership worldwide set up the downward spiral that brought IBM to it's current decline. I predict the future will not be kind to the new IBM going forward.
Former IBMer. I was "chromed" (laid-off) in early 2015.
This was a great presentation!
What I witnessed as a project manager in GBS (Global Business Solutions) from 2012-2015: the companies who contracted IBM to help them could not stand them. They hated, and did NOT trust, the IBM engagement team. I saw this first-hand at 3 separate engagements.
Although it hurt at the time (early 2015), I'm so glad I've moved on to bigger (and better) things. I always knew I was not to blame for their steady and constant decline. It was a "good ole boy/girl" system.
IBM was very successful in brainwashing their employees to be loyal to IBM. Then they fired these sheeple.
It's interesting how many former IBM employees are in the comments LOL
Another one here, joined in 1983. Joined a company that was the best and most profitable in the world. Felt very proud and very fortunate. Left in 2002 feeling very bitter, very angry and extremely disappointed.
@@PhilUKNet let us see if the new ceo (this time not a MBA) will the company
@@nnnn1777 I don't know anything about him apart from what I've read, but no matter how good he might be I think it's too late now.
@LDN Gooner As you can imagine, this doesn't get spoken about within the company. Here's what I know. Before the age of modern computers IBM was known as the Computer-Tabulating Recording Company and produced punch card technology based on designs from Herman Hollerith to record and tabulate data. This technology was used in applications such as the US Census. The first part of my career involved repairing punch card equipment, which was still in use in the 1980's. When the Book 'IBM and the Holocaust' was published in 2001, it became widely known that Nazi Germany was using IBM equipment. In the company's defence, I believe this started around 1933 when AH came to power and it wasn't widely known what his plans were.
I have no clue what Germany used the machines for and I have no clue whether anyone at IBM knew. Perhaps they didn't want to know? I have heard of this story before, but because of my lack of knowledge I have no idea whether it is myth or fact. I would suspect that there are elements of both.
mrwallstreet - It's really not that funny. The truth is often tragic. Luckily I'm out and retired now. But I see the same thing from the outside that I saw from the inside. IBM has already gone thru one period of great difficulty, this is another. This one is more serious. I'm just glad that the IBM pension is well funded.
Palmisano was the smartest guy in this company. Saw the ship sinking at the end, gathered his stuff, set some unrealistic goals and left with his pocket full of money.
Actually, no. He didn't just cash in. He set the company on the right coarse and trimed what needed to be trimed. He was very humane and fair about letting people take early retirement and made the company profitable understanding that services was the next wave. On the other hand I can't say too many good things about the people that followed him as CEO.
As for this video. You should take it with a grain of salt. They got about 10 or 11 percent of their facts right.
I also think Palmisano was good because of the streamlining, but also becuase of the stock prices... but I didn't realize he did buybacks...
@@treojoe1077 Did you ever work there. It doesn't sound like it or you were not very observant.
@@dennisweifenbach2647 Do you have your head stuck up your colon? It sounds like it or you are not very observant.
Yes, dickweed. I worked there 1985-1998, then I left for two and a half years to do consulting during the Y2K panic. Then 2001-2008. In 2008 I was RIFd along with 15,000 Americans and Western Europeans after the crash. And again 2008-2010 as a sub-contractor to help facilitate the move of several internal systems to Brazil.
I now work for a large software company that is also an IBM Business Partner. So, yes, moron, I have a fair amount of experience working for or with the organization.
Any other stupid questions??
This video is meant to be a documentary, enjoyed in one or more sittings, and we hope you enjoy. We go through IBM’s decline from the 1980’s until today. Despite all the negativity in the video, we are actually optimistic of IBM’s future prospects because of who it chose as its next CEO. Let us know who you think led to IBM’s decline and can Arvind Krishna turn the business around?
Time stamps:
The Backdrop 1983-1993 (Was it really a mistake to go with Microsoft and Intel?) : 2:24
Lou Gerstner Years: 1993 - 2001 (IBM is a top player in everything tech!): 5:38
Sam Palmisano Years: 2002 to 2011 (Continuing the Gerstner Vision and missing the cloud!): 18:52
Ginni Rometty Years: 2012 to 2020 (Continuing the Gerstner vision and cutting costs!): 26:13
The Future and Arvind Krishna: 2020 to present (A bright future?): 32:34
I have know senior execs at IBM EU. You would not believe how self-gratifying, self-sufficient (smug) that culture was. It would be completely impossible to do anything that was not routine, anything new. Corporate infighting and corporate evaluation systems made it impossible to be different. They had to put development outside of the company, completely, in order to get anywhere at all. These were called 'research fellows" who could do as they pleased and got funding. But that did not work either. So, IBM had to turn itself into a services company, irrespective of the technologies it would use and this has put IBM up against much smarter and nimbler and far far far less smug companies against which they of course lost pitch after pitch. Perhaps this is the way all companies go. Companies grow big, smug and then fail and shrink.
Stability was important to IBM because it was important to their customers unlike the newcomers in the market that released sh*tware causing the customers to have to deal with the continual bug fixes and new releases (also bug filled).
I knew some IBM consultants, they are generally good communicators, presentable professionals. Good for technical support roles. But technical skills-wise, they are not outstanding for the price they charge, they just don't have the substance.
@@oldhongkong565 Yes. A friend of mine was like that and went to the very top of IBM EU with that skill set. Large companies want to do business with large companies. This is the forte of IBM. You need people who are congenial, communicative, and politically astute for that. It is a certain kind of people that you also find at Shell. They used to be high-flyers in Unilever and Philips, too. You don't have to be intelligent or know much of anything, you just have to be astute and street-smart and well-bred. That is a winning combination. I have been told by the senior HRM at Unilever "We are a company of sixes and sevens, we can't handle people who are nines or tens. An incidental eight is acceptable but even they get fired after a while." I was fired for being 'above a nine' and was saving one of their subsidiaries. I have a PPT presentation of a strategy for icecream in EU, for the board of directors. It was a big thing, then, for they made a lot of money with it. I found it to be child's play. I could shoot holes in it galore. The thing is, how do you survive and become number one without being smart. Donald Trump is probably the dumbest president ever in the USA but he came to the top with a particular skill set that one can only find with cases that show a combination of extreme narcissism and Dunning-Kruger Effect. The point is that if you know little, you do not know what you don't know and so can project yourself as a genuinely confident man. And that is what impresses people and makes such idiots win time and time again over people who are well-informed and much smarter.
@@johnku888 That's what I said :)
I believe you.
And her salary never stopped going up, but hey, you need to attract talent
Or you need muh gender numbers
@@ashishpatel350 why didnt USA learn with downfall of soviets... who went full on enforcing gender quotas and implode into shreds some three odd decades ago
@@ashishpatel350 This
I worked for IBM. It was easy to see that they won't succeed. Even on my low level.
The problem is perception. IBM's midrange systems are awesome. I worked on them for 17 years and they used to run and run. I only realised this when I started using PC servers in another job. While using IBM, we used to sleep at night. I know this sounds strange, but it was true.
Haha we used to sleep at night. Haha.
I began working for IBM in 2014. It was terrible. Turnover was through the roof, customers were extremely dissatisfied, entry level/recent graduates were being exploited by being placed on 5 year ex-pro roles for huge accounts and for that matter you were lucky if you even had an account as many employees were left hung to dry if they could not find one on their own...dreams were sold and lies were told...my experience there still ignites my stress levels unto this day when I think about it...
That's when they called Warren Buffet to pump the stock...
Great video! Im not finished watching it yet, but at 9:40 I noticed a rather large mistake. You stated that consoles after the gamecube did not use PowerPC based chips. This is very incorrect. The Wii and its successor, the Wii U, both used PowerPC hardware, and are both extensions of the PPC 750. The xbox 360 and the Playstation 3 both used IBM based chips as well, with the Xbox 360 using a mostly stock PPC architecture, while the Playstation 3 used a PPC base with a modified architecture known as "Cell". IBM had essentially 99% marketshare of home game consoles until November 2015 when microsoft and sony released the xbox one and playstation 4, both of which were x86 based. Other than that, I'm really enjoying the video so far. You earned my subscription :D
Yes, thank you! We did look that up but meant to say the most modern systems but incorrectly said the WiiU. Thank you for pointing that out a few others have mentioned this below also. The point was we needed a way to show powers decline. One way was it is not used much in newer consoles.
@@TheMarketisOpen yea makes sense. The video is great and its really hard to make a video of that length without overlooking a fact. Still a great video nonetheless, keep it up!
@@TheMarketisOpen That was the least of the incorrect statements made in this pseudo-documentary. Where did you do your research? Did you find a pile of molding boxes of old PC magazines in an abandoned warehouse? Did you browse wikipedia? Or perhaps you just make it up as you went along. About the only "facts" in this video that are correct is how IBM is spelled and the names of their past and present CEOs. Beyond that all I could find were glittering generalities, fantasy speculation and misinformation.
@@treojoe1077 Oh hey look, some internet nobody is saying the video is wrong without actually refuting anything specific. I should totally believe him over the video!
@@TheMarketisOpen correct it or take down the video. you are spreading bullshit.
Replace the word IBM with legacy auto and you can reupload this in ten years. The parallels are astounding
It is an old story. IBM itself came from companies that did not heed the signs of the times. NCR Cash Registers Inc. did not see why cash registers should be electric. So the electric cash register company was formed by an ex NCR man, called National Business Machines, later IBM. Then IBM did not believe in copy machines. So an ex IBM man founded Xerox. Then Xerox did not believe in the personal computers developed at Palo Alto i 1971 - 1973, with mouse and computer screens (monitors did not exist in the market until 1976). A visitor of Palo Alto Research Labs liked this new-fangled thing with screen and mouse and developed Apple. Then Jobs at Apple decided that memory is not necessary as a small memory would be proof that Apple hardware and software design was superior to Microsoft and you needed no right-click button on the mouse. This crashed Apple's market share from 95% to less than 6% and it never recovered. Outside of the USA, it is a very minor player, even in the phone market. Somehow, the same mistakes are made over and over again. It is a chain of blindness and ideosyncrazies of snug CEO's, one afte the other. Without the iPod and iPhone, Apple would have gone broke. Apple only exists because in 1995 Bill Gates saved it with a donation of $250 million in order to avoid having to break up Microsoft.
wow grandpa. I appreciate the history lesson but you underestimate the power of Apple far far too much. Join us in the 21st century.
I completely agree with you. And I would add that without the very lucky iPod/music industry move Apple would be a total sidenote today, with no money to develop a smartphone in 2007 etc.
having recently left NCR after 5 years, I can say that company has no future unless it moves to software interface which it struggles to do.
@The Philosopher of Culture
I hope you don't teach history because just about everything here is wrong. IBM started out as 4 separate companies and was founded by Herman Hollerith who invented the punch card and built the tabulating machines used for the 1890 census. The company was called Computing-Tabulating-Recording Company or C.t.R. Later when Thomas Watson Sr became general manager the company was renamed IBM (International Business Machines). They expanded into electronic tabulating equipment and typewriters. In the 50s and early 60s Watson Jr. saw the need for a general purpose data processing system and gambled on creating it. This became IBM System 360 and because of IBM superior sales and marketing was able to sell it to large corporations and government. Xerox was founded in 1906 and had no relation to CtR or IBM or anybody that worked there. The Xerox Palo-Alto Research Center (Xerox PARC) was founded in the 1970s as a facility to do advanced research into computing and communications as related to office products. Xerox in fact developed a desktop computer call the Alto and a office system of networked computers sharing resources. It was far too expensive to seriously market. *NO* neither the GUI nor the mouse was invented there (see Douglas Engelbart and Ivan Sutherland). And *NO* Apple did not steal from Xerox. They purchased the rights to the Alto operating system and networking. Apple was founded long before they introduced a computer with a GUI and in fact the Lisa was based on the Xerox Alto. It also included networking and shared resources but had a price tag of about $10500. Apple did not own 95% of the personal computer market but a substantial portion. There were other competitors in market but all of that evaporated when IBM introduced the IBM 5150 (IBM PC).
Jobs was banished from Apple and he started up a new company NeXT and supplied venture capital to a startup called Pixar. NeXT supplied them with their line of graphics computers.
By 1997 at the hands of Sculley, Spindler and Amelio, Apple was a few weeks away from bankruptcy a deal was struck with Jobs to come back to Apple and they would purchase NeXT. In addition a deal was struck with Microsoft where they would purchase $150 million in non-voting Apple shares and MS and Apple would develop new versions of the Office suite of products for the Macintosh. NOTHING was "donated". This deal gave Apple operating capital to develop new products based on NeXT technology and Microsoft who was in the throws of government monopoly law suites kept their only competitor afloat.
@@DanielK1213th Yes, and you overestimate your intellect and knowledge of Apples history. And I am sure he will "join" you in the 21st century as soon as you pull your head out of your behind and join the rest of humanity. In 1997 Apple stock had dropped to an all time low of $3.60 (three-dollars and 60-cents) per share. With no operating capital they were a couple of weeks away from bankruptcy. Microsoft agreed to purchase $150 million of non-voting shares from Apple with the agreement that they would co-develop new versions of the Office suite of products for the Mac with Jobs as Apples new CEO. We were all relieved to see this happen because there was a fear that Oracle or Motorola would purchase Apple for pennies on the dollar for the soul purpose of owning their patents and R&D in progress. Apple would have no longer existed.
How were you able to make a boring topic so interesting!?
I'm staggered by the amount of work that went into this video. It deserves much more views.
When the needs of shareholders comes first and you direct your efforts to keeping them happy rather than investing in R&D
Your channel is great for my coronavirus isolation. Planning what to do when the stock markets come back. Just got through your rise and fall videos and now watching your series on history of money! More of this please.
Lots of talk about IBM's Quantum Computer, but I wouldn't hold my breath with this so-called "technological innovation".
Lots of smoke and mirrors so far.
Dude this channel is so amazing, such a nice presentation and explanations of technical terms even for somebody who's not in the world of finance this is so astoundingly intriguing, wow well done
Great insights on the open-cloud, hybrid-cloud, etc... including the reference to AWS as a "Hotel California". This whole part of the video -- discussion is great.
Thank you! Yes , it's easier to see past failures, but it's important to also predict the future.
"This is what happens when you have a sale person running a tech company as CEO", said my brother who left his $90k job at IBM for Google at 25, now he makes nearly $300k
how can I be like your brother lol
@@cizzlen07 Learn to code
300k a year.. yeah.. lmao..
Not per month you dummy
He will never see that 300k...
So no point in braggin about what u make in a year..
The DAY before our meeting in the cafe' - to announce the switch from traditional pensions to 401(k)s - a young engineer I worked with suddenly announced he was taking a new position in Santa Clara - outside the company. Two long-term careerists belittled his announcement - then returned from that meeting looking as if they'd both suffered strokes!
You're documentaries are good, some remarks you make are probably unintentionally hilarious, but honest and straight to the point, Subbed :D
It's always the short-term thinking that bites a company in the ass. If you are only concerned with quarterly financials, to the exclusion of long-term investment and vision, you find yourself right where IBM does. Contrast that with Amazon, which for 20 years kept plowing profits back in the company for expansion and development.
Wow, this is well curated video, keep it up 🙌
Been waiting for this all weekend as promised lol.
lol, thank you!
These are some of the best business case studies anywhere, your helping people learn stuff previously tucked away by bullshit mba courses.
I opened the video with the ideia of only see the firsts minutes but end up watching the full video.
Great info research and focus on this, thanks a lot.
Thanks for the 38 minute MBA. Very good!
Great stuff. Much better than similar videos on higher sub count channels. MORE of this mate! :)
The PowerPC processer was always the wrong approach.
1) It was a RISC (or near-RISC) processor. This was at a time when performance was evaluated in clock speeds and CISC chips were hitting their limits. Even Intel's x86 architecture was moving more RISC-like with the NorthWood cores in the Pentium4. This would turn out to be a dead end. RISC for the PC was abandoned in favor of more parallelism. It was killed by GPUs, ASIC SoCs, and a focus on power consumption (something RISC is not good at). Deep pipelines were more problematic than assumed.
2) It never actually outperforemd nor undercut its Intel rival. I recall PowerPC ads at the time showing how Power PC chips were faster... by showing a chart with measured performance on released intel chips and estimated performance of future PowerPC chips.
3) Software.
It's not that IBM failed to deliver chips. Though that statement may well be true despite the fact that there were several companies building them... the problem is that the chip was never the better alternative.
I think you are way off on your OS/2 and other software assessment as well.
While there were indeed several things that prevented, for example, IBM from properly advertizing; OS/2 had insane hardware requirements when it came out. By the late 90s, though still in development and being actively sold, IBM wasn't using it internally. Most PCs of IBM employees were running windows or, by that point Linux (I really think IBM missed the boat by not making an IBM distro of Linux).
The emphasized the wrong products (Domino over DB/2 for exmple), had way too much of a love-affair with Java. Wrote terribly bloated (tivoli, Lotus Notes), and their interfaces... dear lord... have you ever seen WebSphere?
They sold off their hardware division.. twice (for a while they were competing with themselves in hardware). They also failed to recognize that though PC hardware wasn't making a lot of profit, it was a driver in the "one source" view that allowed their other divisions to thrive despite being more expensive than their competition. Whether eCommerce or Global Services.
Such a great video, keep up.
and thank you so much for the extensive research
Honestly, i amazed IBM still exists at all. it became so..background company that you normally dont even think of it as part of IT landscape.
Every single company that you'd call not-background is consumer-oriented. AWS is well known because even the tiniest business can go to AWS, and Amazon started off as an online book shop. MS, in its beginnings, was making software for people to use at home. Google still is to a large extent an ad sales company based on a search engine. IBM has never done anything consumer-related. Their IBM PC was at its very beginning targeted at businesses. Its mainframe business obviously never targeted consumers. That's why people from outside the business perceive it as such. It's a tech company that bought PwC and competes with Accenture.
I HOPE IBM GOES ON FOREVER .
THEY SEND ME A RETIREMENT CHECK EACH MONTH .
@@ISETTA700 lol
That's because they mostly deal with businesses now and not consumers.
I loved my 16 years at IBM. It was a great company to work for, with a great culture for employees. Sad to see it go down.
Very good little documentary, informative and I found out all of things I hadn't previously known about IBM
Im an ex-Lotus Notes programmer. The production was way more then an email an groupware. It was an rapid development platform that allowed large complex applications. The product was extremely secure and so was used in banks, insurance and insdustrial companies. It was mismanaged by IBM that anyway prefered their own SharePoint and Webshpere products. Thx
A lot of that was in my original script but was cut for time purposes. I had read it was relabeled many different times that it allowed programmers to code together etc... The main point was it failed. And part of its main features of email were surpassed by Microsoft.
@@TheMarketisOpen Like you mention (that was point on) Ray Ozzy was brillant. Lotus Notes was to much ahead of its time. It had a Zoom, a Skype, a Facebook, a SharePoint all rolled up in one single sign on platform... And ya - the most secure email software 😃
it is like asking a car dealer to run university
A 'used car dealer'!
Isn't it what is actually happening now in USA? Selling mostly useless degress for exorbitant prices?
But he cut costs!
as someone who works for IBM i'd say this was a pretty well put together documentary on the business. I appreciate that the ending showed future potential instead of pessimism
As a former IBM employee... get ready to be laid off.
As a another former IBM employee... be a razor sharp contributor and make a difference.
Well laid out & thorough presentation, must have taken forever to edit. Brilliant job to all, thanks so much for this informative video 👍🏼
lol it was a 150 hr trek... Thank you. I got really into it.
I worked at IBM from 1974 to 1994, starting as a intern and ending as a senior dev in development and they were a fantastic company to work for, especially in engineering. I worked on chip design, mainframes, SNA, the PC, OS/2, and middleware such as MQ series and CICS (DB2 isn't middleware). The story behind the PC is more complex than in this video, IBM had the technology to build the PC and indeed there were a number of internal projects similar to the PC based on a processor called the UC which was much better than Intels chip. Similarly OS/2 was much better than Windows but they were both built from a mainframe point of view in terms of cost and functionality and the market wanted cheap and dirty. Intel and Windows were deeply (and correctly IMHO) vilified in IBM. Windows NT was different and I tried very hard to get IBM senior management to recognize that but then Gerstner was appointed and all engineering went out the window. The final straw was when Gerstner decided services was the way to go, this was a colossal mistake to me so I left and joined Microsoft. I find it wryly amusing that 25 years later IBM wakes up to the fact that services was the wrong way to go.
GBS and GTS ring a bell? Services are where most money is spent. Only, this money increasingly comes from small companies. IBM is unable to sell to small companies, unfortunately. Any one man show working or baking or whatever business can buy into Office 365. IBM has nothing that such a shop could use. Amazon is behind Microsoft, in terms of cloud-generated revenue, due to MS including their Office 365 revenue in cloud. Also in terms of revenue, IBM is a distant third behind those first two, but still way ahead of Google. Can you imagine what it would mean if IBM had something as easy to access, as useful for every business, at every scale, as Office 365?
lol 27:52! Love your channel. Just subsribed!
At the end you said "We hope Watson lives up to his promise of doing more harm than good for humanity" haha.
lol, perhaps a Freudian slip, but it was supposed to say the opposite.
@@TheMarketisOpen I was wondering !
TMIO has it in for IBM, apparently! ;-)
The fact is, more people are living better right here than anyone else ever before in history. So don’t expect us to roll over and play dead when you say you’re dissatisfied. It’s not perfect, but it’s a great deal better than when we grew up: a hundred men standing in the street hoping for one job; selling apples on the street corner- that’s one of the things we were dissatisfied about; and you don’t see that much anymore.You’re taller, stronger, healthier, and you live longer than the last generation; and we don’t think that’s altogether bad. You’ve probably never seen a ‘Quarantine’ sign on a neighbor’s door. Diphtheria, scarlet fever, whooping cough-probably none of your classmates are crippled with polio. You don’t see many mastoid scars anymore. We’ve done quite a bit of fighting all around the world. Whether you think it was moral or not a lot of people are free to make their own mistakes today because of it. And that may just include you.I don’t know; maybe part of it’s the fact that you’re in a hurry. You’ve grown up on instant orange juice. Flip a dial-instant entertainment. Dial seven digits-instant communication. Turn a key-push a pedal-instant transportation. Flash a card-instant money. Shove in a problem-push a few buttons-instant answers.But some problems you can’t get quick answers for, no matter how much you want them.We took a little boy into Central Receiving Hospital yesterday; he’s four years old. He weighs eight-and-a-half pounds. His parents just hadn’t bothered to feed him. Now give me a fast answer to that one-one that’ll stop that from ever happening again. And if you can’t settle that one, how about the 55,000 Americans who’ll die on the highway this year? That’s nearly six or seven times the number that’ll get killed in Iraq. Why aren’t you up in arms about that? Or is dying in a car somehow moral?
Such a great work you put in here with this analysis of IBM. Congratulations.
That was an excellent presentation and accords with what I know about IBM.
In 20 years we can read about the decline of Google and Amazon. IBM has been around for a long time
It is surely possible that Amazon or Google will be gone in 20 years, but whose stock would you have rather owned over the last 2 decades? IBM stock in 1999 was $125 a share. Funny that 21 years later, today, it is still at $125 a share. The big difference is that 21 years ago people thought it was undervalued. No one is under that illusion today.
I buy stocks in companies I use. I stopped using Amazon a few months ago as they charge for grocery delivery now and have screwed up a number of my orders lately. Hello, Walmart online.
This must have taken forever to research, collate and edit. Very interesting story. Good job.
37:48 "While Hal allowed humans to die in space, we hope Watson lives up to his promise of doing more harm than good for humanity."
I did a double take.
That ending was poetic! You guys are awesome
For those who are younger IBM may not seem so significant. For those of us like me born around 1970, or earlier, IBM was the quintessential successful profitable innovative company. However, things started going downhill from them starting in the early 80s. Once they're stranglehold over leasing big iron went away. New technology will do that. They've been struggling for decades. It is a small miracle they are still around at all.
I started with IBM in 1963 and retired 30 years later. Working as a Systems Engineer I saw a lot of mistakes but probably the biggest was when the company swapped its rental base for a purchase only base to raise huge amounts of cash. They then invested heavily in plants and laboratories and cranked out a huge array of products that competed with one another and were only partially and poorly developed. The result was a hodgepodge of offerings that nobody, including System Engineers could understand. IBM tried to be all things to all customers and lost market share due to poorly designed and improperly implemented products. Competitors who specialized in a single product would dance around and walk all over IBM.
IBM did well in the early days (1400 / 360) when this was the only game in town. The mainframe hardware and software still suffers from the same architecture issues.
I hope they survive as my pension depends upon them.
Amazing video, would love to see an update!!
yes Arvind has been kicking but. But IBM is still not growing so much but doing a lot better.
IBM couldn't produce CPU's in sufficient quantity for Apple because IBM had be then gone down the downsizing/outsourcing path that de-emphasized manufacturing. I know as I worked in the IBM microelectronics division. Do a Google Earth view of the IBM East Fishkill plant that once housed over 14000 full time employees and 6000-10000 temps and contractors making all manor of chips -- it's a sad state of affairs.
Can you share the Google maps link here?
I was in BTV in 1998, in the memory works, when IBM pulled the plug on the Power PC and gave up trying to compete with Intel x86.
IBM did not understand the MPU business The PowerX architecture was probably superior to Intel's x86, but IBM thought they could have one MPU across all segments, not one for Servers, an LP version for notebooks, a mainstream one for the broad center of the market. Then, with AAPL as their only remaining PPC customer, they lacked the scale to drive (or justify the broad development costs) to stay in the business.
Also, and BTW, with a still-compelling position in Big Iron with their Sys 390, they owned much of the high end, institutional Computing market (e.g, Social Security Admin)...but decided that "the future (and reduced risk) was in software...so they added software people, and milked their hardware division until it withered.
In the late 1990s and early Oughts, They could have OWNED the emerging "Cloud Business", with their historical understanding of THAT market, and the Power PC architecture and technology roadmaps...but with seven layers of management, the top was getting out of the business, when the bottom and technology trends were telling them they could be Master of the Universe in the 'new' Cloud Business.
@@ImNotADeeJay Google Satellite view goo.gl/maps/BCaYijKLokC1pHrK6
Drone video ruclips.net/video/NMwg_QhQCYU/видео.html
Bean counters and greed killed a lot of good companies.
@Raptorman0909 it had absolutely nothing to do with quantity. It was because they couldn’t deliver CPUs that were power efficient and performant, and thus suitable for laptops. Performance per watt was the issue.
The G5 was powerful but they never delivered a version that could be used in a laptop. So PowerPC performance in laptops was stagnant.
It also couldn’t deliver higher clock rate G5 chips for desktops. So stagnant on the desktop as well.
That’s why Apple switched to Intel.
And Apple is switching from Intel to its own ARM architecture chips for the same reason: performance per watt.
The last time I saw anything IBM was OS2 Warp, running on a dying server, in 2005.
os/2 lives as e-com server/workstation still today
Very smart evaluation, thanks for making this video, I learned quite a lot
Thank you!
I've been an investor for many years and typically when you see a company implementing a buyback strategy 4+ years into a market cycle it's a strong indication it's time to sell up. Unfortunately I had to get burned a few times to work that out.
I joined IBM shortly after Lou took over. He was tough but did a great job boosting morale. Shortly after Lou, we built up a better natural language processing platform back in 2004 than Siri today. We were using that tech for call routing and ramping up when suddenly everything was cut.Then Watson hit the scene. Instead of integrating their existing NLP talent, they scattered us. I never understood why until this video, thanks. The IBM tech culture used to be a good thing. We were proud, energetic and we stuck together. However, while we were setting them up to be a key player in NLP, the stock buybacks were in full swing at the expense of research. A few years later my team eventually left and joined the Googles and Amazons of the world. Raising a family, I valued stability after 2008 so I stayed. I'll leave out the cuts and legal Pearl Harbor job they did to our severance. I am a contractor now and want to stay sharp so I will not be owned like that again. The lesson is that a company is only as good as the talent it attracts. Sounds like this new CEO is finally in a position to do what Gerstner did and play to its strengths, instead of bean counting themselves into oblivion.
Sadly the new CEO recently said he wants to have DEI policies instead of merit based policies... Decline of IBM will continue 😢
I love IBM and its technology focus..IBM gave me the opportunity to work with Java virtual machine optimizing it for Websphere, then with Server virtualization and many other technologies including IoT, AI , Quantum and currently AI on Edge ..I guess the redhat acquisition will help IBM since it has given the flexibility to have IBM technology stack whereever openShift environment is available..it is more OPEN and flexible now compared to the mainframe /DB2 period..I have spent 20 years with IBM India..Hope and wish it bounces back..Rajesh Jeyapaul, IBM India
This was an amazing video. Thank you!
Brilliant and concise history of IBM. Thank you!
Good one. Thank you.
I work in IBM, I'm not really fit with product-oriented culture.
I'm customer-oriented, why do they treat our customer with so many boundaries ?
I know boundaries are good to make all the things are clear with our scope, but doesn't mean just do the responsibility and then done.
We need to satisfy our customer as well !
very informative, my dad worked for IBM in the late 60's, during their heyday. I'm going to read the comments, lots of good opinions so far. The myth that HAL in 2001 was IBM altered by one letter was denied by Kubrick, who said it stood for Heuristic and ALgorithmic. But I recall there was mention of IBM at some point, showcasing their computer dominance in the late 60's into the 70's.
This is great video. Thank you 😃
That IBM PC was my first experience with a PC. I still remember the OS. It was set up like a folder
The company that made Microsoft.
Intel, Oracle, Global Foundries, Lenovo, Linux, Cisco....the list continues
Amazing research and presentstion.
Where to begin? I was 8 yrs old when an IBM representative offered my father IBM stock at his front door. It was $1 a share for IBM stock. He had 10 kids with me being the youngest. The salesman/rep was very good and stirred my imagination about something I had never heard of before. To no avail my father closed the door on him. What is a stock? My dad didn't seem to know either. As I grew that company grew. International Business Machines turned into IBM for short. My dad couldn't fix our television. I took the vacuum tubes down to the local drug store and the store owner helped me test them. I found which tubes failed and collected pop bottles to buy two of them. The tv worked afterwards and my older brothers and sisters watched whatever they wanted to and had no idea I was the reason it was working. They didn't believe me when I told how I repaired it. By 1964 IBM was building computers using vacuum tubes. During my high school years IBM was a trademark leader in everything.
--During the Viet Nam War/draft notice era I had a "greetings" from Uncle Sam and enlisted. Not surprisingly I entered into electronics, microwave radio repairman in a self pacing program and IBM obviously had integrations into many military applications by then. Radar, radio and logic circuits went from vacuum tubes to transistors (except for klystrons and high current power amplifiers) Upon leaving the military and having experience garnered from the USAF, I applied at Michigan Bell Telephone in related private sector career field, radio relay equipment repair identical to my armed forces training. Michigan Bell was in transition but needed technicians for expansion of microwave towers for distribution of phone, television and information systems.
--At the time I thought in advance I'd hit pay dirt. I took an examination for that repairman job along with 40 or so other people of race, sex and abilities. I was first to finish the test. To my surprise the people in the office asked me how I'd finished so quickly before I could leave the room. As I explained to him another was examining my answers. The fellow who gave me the questioning began to explain that "I have good news and bad news." He went on, "According to the 1971 Federal Hiring Guidelines, jobs predominantly employed by Caucasian males were being filled by minorities and women. "So I cannot hire you. That's the bad news." That I was willing to sit on a mountaintop with a radio sporting a pair of parabolic dishes and a rifle didn't seem to matter when it came to employment. (Fortunately the war ended before I had a chance to go there.) So disappointed I left Bell Telephone.
With some luck I later hired into General Motors as a janitor since they try to hire returning vets.
In a phone call a few months later, the Bell Telephone guy calls me. He said that "he has an opening as a telephone operator." He also told me I was the only one to pass that exam and had a perfect score. I lucked out and hired into Fisher Body GM for less than a year.
.--When I hired into General Motors at AC Spark Plug (1975 to 2000) as a returning veteran I went from sanitation to electrician to Trades Supervisor at AC Engineering, moved ot other plants installing much more automated systems by 2003. By then operators were gone at Bell and so was Bell broken to pieces by monopoly laws. It was of course IBM systems that afforded replacement of people at Bell and at GM in many jobs. I still remember a 10 MB harddrive the size of a goddam suitcase. I worked with a former NASA guy installing uninterruptible power systems to AC Spark Plug computer systems at their "World Headquarters" in Flint Michigan at the time.
IBM was the standard at General Motors. Every company was modelling their own electronics. Adept Robotics developed high end part placement robotic systems using Motorola processors like the 68000 series used in Commodore Amigas with Video Toasters (I still have one or two) IBM stayed in its business format mostly but I did enjoy Big Blue beating Kasporov. We had IBM mainframes at AC Engineering and other systems began to dominate the market. Laser Machining Inc used an IBM format LOTUS I think and later a system of their own to laser cut acrylic lenses en masse for the GMT 800 lines and so on. Cincinnati Milacron developed their own software. Metal cutting and shaping , circuit boards assembly systems began building systems for factories at GM all over the world. (I look back at that $1 share of GM stock. I can't remember how many millions it was worth by the,) Sorry for any typos.
If I were to make a prediction about the future it would gaming development and radiation shielding in space craft. Spacecraft can be made to have precise computer controlled magnetic deflection. I think quite easily in space at superconductor operating temperatures of 2.7Kelviin. As we fuck up this planet we will need to venture out there. The moon as the Chinese know is the ideal place to set up shop. Look to the space beyond and the moon is a way point. Look back earth and rail guns can shoot supplies there like perhaps Helium 3 or maybe nukes if a war breaks out. With vast continuous 24 hour solar energy day and the raw materials to make solar panels, cosmic ray and gamma ray deflection are also in the realm of possibility.
If we happen to make the moon like Earth (a sure possibility with a simple inflated atmosphere we'd have a 2nd earth. The wealthy might like it there too. (I'd call it: Planet Mearth) G'nite my pills are wearing off.
Good story, ever heard of elon musk?
Moon not so much cant make life their sustainable.
Mars only choice for sustainable life.
@@chillrawr9603 --
Yes Who hasn't heard of Elon Musk? a Reusable launch platform, costing in the thousands instead of millions per launch. hired NASA techs and engineers and his car has been to Mars and back twice?..
--My impression is that the moon could become a great getaway for the extremely wealthy. There are even stories of glass cities there once upon a time and enough solar energy to smelt it.. ( Trump needs a place to call home. Bring the money cannons.) When the moon is terraformed we can rename it planet Mearth. (Moon merry Earth) Select asteroid mining for Mars impacts would warm the CO2 at the poles.(Another Elon Idea.)
__Also the moon is militarily advantageous. We always have to consider a military application for something we call a balance of power or we can learn Mandarin.
Another consideration for the moon is that of a way station between Earth and Mars launches. Payloads can be much smaller at launch from there (at least from what I have read.)
--Dr. Robert Zubrin argues it differently and wishes a direct shot to Mars with a quite good feasible plan and to use a nuclear pack to create methane for a return flight.
--Also the long spaceflight duration flight to Mars is very hard on mission specialists. Mission specs require at least centrifugal spin to reduce bone marrow loss.
--Radiation bursts and continual bombardment from our sun is a long term concern as well. I entertain ideas of blocking that myself with Star Trek like shields. Create magnetic flux lines to deflect incoming particles with a directional system.
@@Laviolette101 man US space tech is literally space x tech if for somr reason space x was not born until today US will rely on russia on getting to orbit.
Speaking of getting to the moon it is not doable w.o space x.
Excluding space x US cant reach orbit. So dont theorize going to the moon or mars w.o space x.
@@chillrawr9603 Re-usable rockets are the way to go. Space X had the advantage of hiring NASA staff. They brought accelerated space tech knowledge with them when they walked in the door. Elon Musk was the entrepreneur/geek hybrid that made it happen with viable projects, government grants and a successful work history preceding him. He is not the kind of guy you would hire. You or I would just get in his way but if we had any merit in his program I doubt he would turn anyone away with a decent idea.
I doubt much will happen in joint US/Russia launches with the recent election tampering. We have other suppliers right now such as Space X. Trump's Space Force is a covert ops with little known about it. We likely will not let the Russians haul it up there for us.
What a brilliant video. So many great points backed up by thorough research. The only things I can think of that I might have added (1) Some companies that were brilliant at R&D failed horribly eg Sun Microsystems which must have scared people (2) The Market over the last ten years has rewarded growth over profitability - that may reverse (3) A lot of it (as you hinted at the beginning of your video) was about Narrative - Satya Nadella talks a great game and has somehow managed to make the market applaud his move to a lower margin business model ie cloud based software
Indian Business Machines ?
So according to you, it should have been named American Business Machines- when all the employees were from USA. It didn't. Isn't it!!
@@subhankarmukherjee8142 speaking for others is generally not a good trait. He said what he said.
exactly. Low quality workers always result in dead business
For an old guy - a former professor of information technology and artificial intelligence - I have followed IBM with ups and downs for more than 50 years. Lately it has been mostly downs! Essentially IBM has transformed from a hardware manufacturer (cash registers and computers) to a software manufacturer. The thing about software development is that it doesn't require much capital to get started. Any bright programmer who hits on 'the next big thing' and writes an app to do it can create a multi-billion dollar company. That means that IBM has become a just a single fish in a very big sea....
Hey sir, do you know how IBM's Watson technology compare to Google's A.I. technology?
@@gordontang7837 Watson is a joke, none uses it, not even with in IBM. IBM is firing many folks from Watson research. Just ignore it.
Great video, thanks for uploading
so now the "I" in IBM really stands for "India" eh ?
Cherubino 1000%
indeed :)
Ew
@@cuervoblanco71 The I stands for Indeed?
😂
Never forget that during their primo years (1925-1979-ish), IBM rented much of their equipment, especially the computers in the 1960s-1970s. They both made their own gear and got rental money through those machines because they were mostly a B-to-B outfit which is why they focused on mainframes instead of free-standing microcomputers.
As someone who read Who Says Elephants don't dance, Gerstner's smartest move was keeping the company together. Considering how much cash they were losing he did a brilliant job.
Gerstner might have made an elephant dance, but elephants also leave a copious trail of byproducts along the way that takes an army of underlings with push brooms and trashcans to clean up or step in
I worked for them for two years after they offered me a job as a contractor at the company I originally worked for cut thousands of jobs. It was a real eye opener when I questioned a decision and was pulled aside and was told "this is the way we make money". They basically suck the talent pool dry, ship the information off to India and then cut you lose.
It seems clear to me that the directions that CEOs take is pretty much determined by their own area of expertise. R&D seems key to a successful product range and undercutting this budget brings with it decline. I am glad to see that the new CEO has a technical background. I hope he continues to resurrect strong technical innovation back to IBM as supporting services is not the future in my humble opinion. I wish him well.
I had read a long time ago that their patents were a big source of income somehow? Or related. When I heard they were selling so many off, that seemed like a red flag to me.
Impressive video. I look forward to more content.
Thank you! it was quite the undertaking
I worked for IBM from 1965 to 1992. People who never worked for IBM under Tom Watson Sr and Tom Watson Jr. have no idea what a wonderful employee oriented company it was. There was pride in being an "IBMer" There are a lot of people who currently work for IBM but very few "IBMers".
Starting with Palmisano, IBM forgot to treat its employees with respect, letting go of many key personnel in exchange for short-term gains in share price. Rometty didn't correct, but instead increased this trend, with a result that nobody with any intelligence wants to work there now.
At one time being an IBM’r meant you were the best of the best. They only recruited the best students and then spent a lot on educating their employees. They were expensive to hire, but wow they were great.
Now they have a revolving door of employees in the third world reading scripts and unable to do anything but rote work. A complete disaster once you get past the account reps.
Awesome video!!
IBM when you allow stocks holders to determine your company's vision and do not believe in yourself.