back
150 comments
Another, contrarian perspective: I worked with IBM Fellows, CTOs, Distinguished Engineers, VPs, and divisional GMs for two decades, and they were sharp. Less than 1N on the CATRA scale sharp. Absolutely on par with folks I worked with Apple, HP, Intel, Microsoft, Oracle, Sun Microsystems, and IBM's competitors of the time.

IBM's approach was indeed heavy-weight, and they loved complexifying things—but so did a lot of their customers in finance, aerospace, automotive, consumer goods, yadda yadda. IT operated by an entirely different business model and set of preferences in 1960–1990 than it did in 2000. It was the bespoke, pre-open standards, we'll handle all the edge cases in this lovingly homegrown solution era. The products were expensive, but in many cases solved technical operational problems that nothing else did. "Best of breed" was a common rallying cry; interchangeable parts and the virtues of utter standardization only came into prominence slowly.

The world's very different now, and there was enormous tension inside IBM, and between IBM and its customers and competitors, evolving to where we are today. (The same was true of almost all the legacy competitors.) However real that tension, what worked in the Before Times was the cause, not that IBM only employed doofuses or brought Mongol Hordes and crappy technology to bear.

I worked at IBM Research in 2003 for a year. There were a ton of extremely bright people there. It was pretty cool to go around a corner and see an office that belonged to Benoit Mandelbrot. Another office had the name tag of one of the "Design Patterns" guys.

But it felt like IBM Research was totally disconnected from the actual business of IBM. The switch away from pensions also seemed to make IBM way less attractive for new hires.

What is the CATRA scale? Searching brings up a fictional character from a cartoon, and something to do with knife sharpening.
Worked at IBM for some time recently and I agree with many people here about the amazing technical talent there. Really bright people with deep understanding about their fields. I also worked with some very good project managers there, that can move very complex projects ahead like a maestro.

IBM problem today is:

1) The bureaucracy and general organizational sluggishness created by years and years of policy over policy to avoid 1%, 2% risks that in the end impact 100% of the company.

2) the leadership, which mostly come from the commercial part of the firm and are "number cookers", who now how to play the forementioned bureaucracy and controls, moving around air to look like their are beating their targets.

This makes the company extremely slow, unwilling to take risks, letting Google and Microsoft pass them repeatedly. Personal Computers, the Internet, Cloud Computing and now AI. IBM was at the right place on all of those opportunities, but its internal problems made it unable to take the right action to fetch them.

I worked for a startup that sold to IBM. My impression is that IBM has been in the business of responding to market needs by attempting to build the best possible technical solution that also drives customers to stay in the IBM sphere.

However, what IBM forgot is that the market is big, and the market drives towards commoditization wherever it can. Any technical advancement that makes technology faster/cheaper is where the market will go -- even if it means compromising in other areas like up-time. IBM is, naturally, allergic to becoming a commodity and tries to drive to higher margin business. e.g. Mainframes, consultant heavy engagements, AI, etc.

But the revolution that happened since the PC revolution, that commodity hardware and open source software (free in beer and freedom) could power companies both the size of IBM and in the same competitive space seems to be a lesson IBM has perpetually never quite gotten into their DNA. There's no "fixing" IBM. It will linger on momentum for a while until somebody else eventually just buys it for whatever IP they can squeeze out of it, dismembers the corpse, and spins out single purpose core businesses all in one excrement pile. It might take another decade or so, but it's coming.

They also axed an enormous number of experienced field-support techs and lost most of their institutional support knowledge in the process.
They were not in the right place.

They were directly competing with the future of tech, in particular as it applied to personal use.

My father in law worked for IBM in the 60s-90s in chip fab / manufacturing in NY. They used to make everything down to the screws that held the machines together, had their own paint shop, etc. By the time he left all of that was gone.
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 plays out at the small scale as well. When I started out writing commercial software it was very common to either sell a PC with it, or at least sell the concept of computerisation. For lots of companies this was their first computer. We were their defects IT department.

10 years goes past, and customers now already have computers. 10 more years and they have IT either on staff, or on contract.

We got to go back to writing software.

In the same way, yes, IBM needed to do everything. There was no off-the-shelf anything. So try make hardware, wrote software, sold services.

And this is the point. IBM always existed to sell services. Everything else was to get them there. Other people made hardware. Others made software. They are left to focus on their services.

This is likely revisionist history because I'm sure along the way lots of IBMers saw themselves as a hardware or software company. But I'm not sure that was ever the "core" idea. Those were just necessary to sell services, and were off-loaded along the way.

So all that screw making and painting was not there to support computing, but rather was legacy manufacturing that computing took advantage of.

They had a long legacy of mechanical engineering from the days of card punches and readers and teleprinters. Even into the 70s and 80s they were a major — perhaps by then the major — typewriter manufacturer. Typewriters were “business machines”.

IBM’s original name was The Computing-Tabulating-Recording Company. They started out making cash registers and related products.

Maybe a better way to see this is that during WWII they reconfigured their factories to make machine guns. Factories don’t look like that any more.

And maybe that's just as well. The value of IBM hardware was not in the screws or the paint.
I grew up near where IBM was started in a small town that had an IBM secret military project (top 10 bomb target for USSR!). While no one could tell me what they or their parents did at IBM, I heard some fun stories. One was about a guy who disliked people visiting his office, so he barricaded his door and would climb in and out through the transom window.
I remember the original IBM "think pad":

https://www.wired.com/2009/10/the-original-ibm-thinkpad-was-...

Before there even were computers, they gave out these small paper pads for jotting things down, with "THINK" on the cover.

I spent some time with IBM: Worked on the inside in an AI (artificial intelligence) project at their research lab and also outside -- sometimes a happy customer and sometimes fighting with IBM and being happy with other computer vendors.

Here is how IBM worked when their approach worked well: They would have polished sales representatives (reps) who would get the confidence of a relatively high decision maker, commonly a CEO, also with contacts with the BOD, in an organization that had some serious data processing problems. The IBM rep would talk with the CEO (decision maker) about the problems and claim that IBM could implement a good solution. Commonly that was music to the ears of the CEO -- just give the leadership, design work, technical work and products of the solution to IBM.

Generally we would regard IBM's charges as high, but in the target companies (1) IBM didn't have serious competition and (2) the company and their problem was so big that the IBM charges were worth it.

With the business at a target customer, IBM worked hard, made sure the hard/software was highly reliable, and delivered good results.

E.g., one customer was a medical insurance company. They had staffs in three time zones keying in medical claims applications. For this they had a mainframe computer, with their usual operating system, their network equipment ending with their 3270 terminals, COBOL-based (right, maybe PL/I, etc.) applications software, DB2 relational data base, etc.

The system worked very well: A significant outage meant that to keep up with the work staff would have to be called back after hours and paid overtime.

Soooo, it was important that the whole system had almost no downtime. Part of the approach was to have a test system and for any hard/software update, run it on the test system for some days before using the update for the real work.

Both IBM and the customer were very serious. Uh, having to pay some overtime could cost the System Manager his bonus.

Now, there are lots of options for data entry. PCs and even laptops can play a major role. The mainframes IBM was selling as computers were tiny and slow compared with nearly any desktop or laptop PC now. Having one PC out of hundreds+ quit does not have to be serious problem.

Now lots of people and companies can set up serious, reliable, powerful computing installations, and IBM is no longer the only option.

And the IBM target customer is no longer such a big part of computing.

I nearly went to IBM. Fortunately I didn't. Their program for plant visits was the best of any of the companies I interviewed with: at the end of the day, they asked me to estimate all my expenses, and then they handed me an envelope of cash.

Another legacy company book HN'ers would really like for a Christmas gift is "Bill & Dave"

https://www.amazon.com/Bill-Dave-Hewlett-Packard-Greatest/dp...

the author is an unabashed fanboy, and the history ends with Mark Hurd before he imploded. Still, it's a great history of a (formerly) great company.

There is a very good argument that the real inheritor of the HP DNA is Keysight.
how did Mark Hurd implode? I've never heard this before
To anyone interested in the history of IBM (and I think the TJ Watson Jr. era has many lessons to teach!), be sure to also read IBM and the Holocaust by Edwin Black. I read this recently -- and wished I had read it much earlier.[0]

[0] https://bcantrill.dtrace.org/2023/11/26/what-punch-cards-tea...

Yes, I was surprised that this article didn't mention that even though The Atlantic has written about it before.
IBM used to have a bunch of songs they'd get together to sing

Here's a fun Christmas themed one

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AxFMV6tAg64

IBM has a fondness for complexity that makes the current situation with cloud offerings look like children's toys.

Their Global Services division could be summarized as a War on Kernighan's Law. Find clever people, and have them strain themselves to stand up a system so complex that you not only need to keep paying GS to show up and maintain it, but in fact you probably need to hire two more people just to keep the wheels on.

That has made them many enemies on the technical side of things. People like me go out of our ways to sabotage any inroads they try to make because we know what will happen if we don't. Presentations of systems so complex you get a headache trying to wrap your mind around it.

If we talk about it, it's not for long and with as few ears to overhear as possible. It's like guerilla warfare. Targeted attacks against a foe who could crush you like a bug if they knew where to find you.

Oracle sniffing around is merely an irritation compared to the spectre of IBM GS getting their hooks into your CTO.

My last CEO was ex-IBM. He was pissed when we (his technical team), nixed his attempt to do a storage related deal with IBM. We went through endless meetings with dozens of people on the calls. They wanted to bring in some giant complex product and we just wanted boxes with disks. They couldn't understand that we didn't need all the striping tools they had, because our storage was just using full multiple copies across servers/disks. It was a total square peg / round hole situation and their sales team tactics were to try to discredit people individually with what amounted to as being complete lies. It really put a bad taste in my mouth to ever deal with those type of people again.
The worst quality software I ever worked on as a software developer was an unholy mess of baldy indented, copy & pasted PL/SQL, spaghetti code JSPs, and dubious code generally ... written by IBM contractors (around Y2K timeframe). Luckily the CTO was smart enough to hire our own team to build and maintain it (and eventually rewrite it) rather than have IBM maintain it for $$$$.

I once saw the original architecture document and it was actually very nice -- though perhaps unorthodox. The implementation was like an encyclopedia of Worst Practices.

I also worked a summer for IBM Global Services doing some sysadmin and security work back in 1997... I'd characterize the whole thing as... mediocrity.

Another time, I worked a contract in another part of IBM and saw other parts and got to attend presentations and lectures there and see the patents on the walls, and be exposed to some of the really smart people and history there, and that product side of the organization (people who worked on DB2, etc.) seemed much better.

You point out Oracle as akin (but less entirely awful). I'd throw Palantir on the pile. Sell management on bullshit, then, once they've got their hooks in, it turns out they'll need to be way up your ass (and billing the whole time) to make any of it happen, and the entire process will be miserable. Another candidate for "begin insurgent activities as soon as the name is overheard" responses.
Making thing simpler is hard.

Any technical excellence at IBM is probably an island and definitely doesn't represent the rest of the company.

In my time there, only one thing mattered: head count (or more precisely, body count). It didn't matter if those heads could think. It was all about closing outsourcing contracts and making a profit. With the occasional sprinkle of Watson propaganda sprinkled on top to make it look like you were at the pinnacle of computing.

I'm surprised IBM still exists. I can't remember a single company that I worked for where IBM would have helped anything.

Years ago I worked for IBM, and have dealt with them in various contexts since.

The thing I've found that best captures the essence of IBM is how they love bringing *everyone* to every meeting, and then insist on full introductions. Every time.

I've been on a few different projects where we would routinely chew up 20 minutes of a 30 minute call hearing every last one of them announce their name and role. Thanks folks, I already know who you are. Can we talk about the project now?

> Find clever people, and have them strain themselves to stand up a system so complex that you not only need to keep paying GS to show up and maintain it, but in fact you probably need to hire two more people just to keep the wheels on.

AS/400 can still be found in the checkout line at Costco. I don't think it is the main POS system but is used for things like looking up customer information. IIRC Oracle is taking a lot of that retailer backend business now.

I have a feeling that IBM, including all those pre-80 behemoths, are more like civil servants -- they always remind me of Sir Humphrey with tons of formality, planning and such. Maybe it's because they hired from academies heavily and actually did work on a lot of government projects?

Since this is the real "engineering" spirit that HNs love, I'm not going to argue. But I definitely prefer SpaceX' run and break things spirit.

I don’t really have anything to contribute, but feel compelled to express how depressing it is to see IBM today.

My first computer was an IBM PS/2 Model 25. It came with a budget version of the Model M keyboard, but without the number pad. It’s still the gold standard for how a keyboard should feel. If it wasn’t an IBM computer then it was a cheap clone.

Later in life, I was inspired to go to law school because of the SCO vs IBM case, and the excellent lawyering by IBM’s counsel.

Now, it’s like watching a zombie movie. I don’t even know what they do anymore.

I agree with you about this but have an even darker take in that I see the exact same lack of vision in every single large tech company out there today. I mean, IBM does actually sell hardware and software ...that's a lot more than you can say about some of the other big names out there.

I have a theory that the death of the traditional computer company and it's buisness model, in the sense a company like an Oxide or IBM or Sun would understand the term "computer company", as well as the transition to the cloud for all new infrastructure, fundamentally changed the landscape in tech in a very negative way culturally speaking.

The hyperspecialization of the industry and consolidation of hardware into a single dominant platform for most serious buisness computing needs, obviated the need for traditional engineering cultures. It's hardly any wonder that this same transition also was a transition towards Agile development methods (or rather a cheap imitation of them, if it was ever even intended to be some paradigm shift at all).

The industry and the vibes I got were radically different and better even during ostensibly difficult times like right after dotcom.

My first computer was also an IBM PS/2 Model 25. Was an amazing little machine. I ran Turbo Pascal on it for my undergrad CS degree. Great times.
Unhumble brag: A PI at IBM Almaden tried to hire me as a paid dark matter research assistant ~1994. Plot twist: I wasn't old enough to drive much less take a gig because parental units and school were involved between the ages of 15.5 and 18.

Awesome brag: The road leading to the IBM Almaden front gate was fun to bike down.

Spilling some beer for the Model M buckling spring keyboard, an evolutionary dead for no good reason. (Unicomp is not equivalent)
Particularly the Gen Z should know at least the IBM Mainframes
This article is terribly written. It flows between strong claims like this one:

> The company’s technological accomplishments are still recognizable as the forerunners of the digital era, yet its culture of social responsibility—a focus on employees rather than shareholders, restraint in executive compensation, and investment in anti-poverty programs—proved a dead end.

And loose narrative, without ever tying the two together at all.

How was this culture of social responsibility a "dead end" exactly? Oh, it's just a vibe. Let's talk about Watson family drama.

I think it means they were losing money before they put Watson Jr. out to pasture and brought in the hatchet man Gerstner, who took millions per year and left after 13 years with a $189 million severance package. IBM seemed more successful by the early 2000s.

I am not sure how the anti-poverty programs tie in but most likely they were just scrapped as no longer in fashion.

> But ask an ordinary person under the age of 40 what exactly IBM does (or did), and the responses will be vague at best. “Something to do with computers, right?” was the best the Gen Zers I queried could come up with. If a Millennial knows anything about IBM, it’s Watson, the company’s prototype AI system that prevailed on Jeopardy in 2011.

I find this attitude to be fairly trite and disingenuous. Maybe we should ask millennials and zoomers what exactly it is that Goldman Sachs does or Dow or Cisco or any other large company that doesn't sell majority direct to consumer and see if we get a more intelligible answer. Just because a company isn't selling to you specifically doesn't mean it's a failure. I'm happy to criticize IBM, but let's do it for legitimate reasons (trend chasing, perhaps?) and not "my 16 year old doesn't know what they do so they must not be relevant"

IBM used to sell computers directly to consumers. They don't do that anymore so it's normal that IBM isn't on anyone's mind for a long time now. My mom knew IBM pretty well decades ago when she was a typist. Nowadays she wouldn't have a clue if IBM still exists or what it does.
I'm not sure it's so much criticism as observing that they've gone from being the Ford of computers to being... IDK, some parts manufacturer for cars that nobody's aware of unless they're in the industry.
I think the point is that IBM is ostensibly a "tech" company and most people in tech (young and old) have never dealt with them nor do they know any of their products. We vaguely remember seeing IBM-branded desktops decades 30+ years ago, but that's about it.

Ask people about any large company in their own industry and they would know at least one of their products or services, and that includes Goldman Sachs, Dow, or Cisco.

Gen Z is 1997-2012, aged from 11 to 26. It’s likely that the Gen Z they’re most experienced with are strongly biased to the 26 y/o end and that’s old enough to know a few things.
> Dick Watson was a much less rebellious character than Tom; he’d even permitted his father to accompany him and his bride on their honeymoon.

1) What