Changing IBM’s CEO alone will not fix its underlying product problem: customers need compelling reasons to choose—and keep paying for—its technology. Recent acquisition Hashicoprp Terraform faces OpenTofu, and IBM’s software must justify its additional cost against cloud-native alternatives. In my view, IBM Bob’s enterprise proposition pales beside Claude Code using Claude models through Amazon Bedrock, supplemented by Martin AI for easier token budgeting, prompt and plugin libraries, and usage leaderboards. That combination addresses both developer productivity and enterprise adoption; Bob must demonstrate a compelling advantage beyond access to models that IBM itself sources from providers such as Anthropic. A leadership change cannot substitute for differentiated products and clear customer value. The board should seriously explore selling IBM while its enterprise relationships and established assets still command substantial value, rather than asking shareholders to finance another turnaround promise.
17 replies (most recent on top)
@b4 that's the way IBM contracts end, and no new customers will even consider IBM as a solution seller any more. IBM leadership in anything technical is a charade with nonsensical PowerPoints (from India) and Bulls droppings. They have ZERO science and technology, not even for Client Zero. Running out of ideas? Try mentioning Quantum and Nanostack to everyone.
So, Let's see if Alvind can jack up the IBM stock price rocket to $300 a share this week. That will be a bloody miracle. But wait - there's more PIPs and layoffs on the near horizon for the US and Europe, so maybe the dolt will pull it off. No miracles needed - just dump the most useful people in one or two geos and hire useless ones in another.
IBM is dead. It's been dead for a long time. A bunch of Indians wearing the name like a skinsuit are farming izzat and practicing chaalaki, working at their stupid caste system garbage. Eventually inertia will run out and the entire thing will collapse, but the Indians won't care, they'll be at the next company, or living like kings in the slum subcontinent.
@en pure garbage. rambling like was IBM doom.
Bob says, we should buy back Notes and rebrand it Bob Notes with embedded Bob goodness. Plus Bob can help rewrite Notes in Cobol.
IBM is still selling against yesterday’s fear while AWS, Microsoft, and Google are selling into today’s economics. For years, enterprises were warned that vendor lock-in was the great cloud risk, so they bought abstraction layers, hybrid-cloud platforms, middleware, and portability frameworks designed to preserve the theoretical ability to move workloads anywhere. But the market is learning that complexity lock-in can be far more expensive than vendor lock-in. If you build directly on AWS using Bedrock, DynamoDB, IAM, S3, Lambda, and other native services, you are absolutely committing to Amazon—but you are also reducing architectural layers, integration points, operational burden, deployment friction, and often the number of specialized teams required to keep the stack running. By contrast, inserting OpenShift and additional enterprise middleware simply to maintain portability can create a permanent tax on every application: more licenses, more patching, more integration, more troubleshooting, and more people required to manage the abstraction. That is IBM’s strategic weakness. Hyperscalers increasingly help companies ship faster and simplify infrastructure; IBM too often monetizes the complexity created by avoiding commitment. In an AI market where speed, cost, and time-to-production matter more every quarter, that is a dangerous place to be. The winning architecture is not the one that can theoretically run everywhere. It is the one that delivers business value fastest at the lowest operational cost.
IBM hasn't actually built a new product since the mid/late 1990s (MQ and Websphere were the last actual products). Everything since has either been an acquisition or as another poster states a CS101 type weekend project.
@b4 I am always asked to “copy” what others are doing.
@b4 it sounds like you learned, as I did, that senior level r&d and management don't give a flying fu-k about the products, their usefulness, or their quality. You're doing the right thing to coast. I made some efforts to improve things and was RAed, likely as a result. Not that I was sad to be out of that shithole, but I had to scramble to get my finances in order. Be prepared.
I worked in a R&D organization, technical leaders refused to allow development of any complex solution that might require deep development and investments.
During my career at IBM, STSMs, DEs asked us to stop trying to work on any challenging solution. Every time, we get a customer request to deliver a good solution, they perfect excuses to reject it. I was told, they do not want to be bothered with "just in case" there is an issue and they have to do real work.
Customers moved one by one from IBM offerings.
Now, I am coasting (doing nothing) and waiting for a package to retirement.
The younger generation is out of luck.
Vote for more Republican lunacy! Man walked with the dinosaurs and vaccines cause autism. Don't let the co-mies take over!
No organization WANTS to buy an IBM product. They use IBM products because they are locked in. They really should work to unshackle themselves. Stop writing COBOL. Stop investing in RedHat stuff forced onto the platform. Get off of IMS. Use a real AI vendor.
I thought all IBM products were PDFs.
IBM products used to solve complex enterprise use cases. The products were not the simplest or easiest to use, but they were powerful, reliable and versatile. The tendency of releasing incomplete (disguised as MVPs) half baked toys, ki-led IBM reputation. The software products are not suitable for the enterprise user and pale in front of the multitude of options available for more general users.
IBM should give up the charade. Anyone with half a brain knows its products su-k. Only pedestrian co-k su-kas find inspiration in IBM excretions.
He knows this. Thst is why he is helping India as much as he can while he has the light
Pure gibberish.
Customers used to pay high premiums for real engineered products. Products like the Z, P and storage platforms. Customers do not want to pay IBM high premiums for stupid gibberish, worse that a CS101 projects.
The "technical" leadership is completely useless and incompetent.
It has been that way for at least 10 years.
Example: the cloud technical leadership was a scamming Indian bunch. The proof: Where is IBM cloud ?
Only an id--t would buy ANY product from IBM. Apparently there are id--ts out there who do. Therefore, IBM makes products for id--ts. It's not a good look.