When I look at their net income (~16 billion) and stock two words that do <i>not</i> come to mind are decline and fall.<p><a href="http://www.google.com/finance?chdnp=1&chdd=1&chds=1&chdv=1&chvs=maximized&chdeh=0&chfdeh=0&chdet=1371076142146&chddm=484449&chls=IntervalBasedLine&q=NYSE:IBM&ntsp=0&ei=cva4UYj9DY7-iQKnHA" rel="nofollow">http://www.google.com/finance?chdnp=1&chdd=1&chds=1&chdv=1&c...</a>
I used to be a developer with IBM and I was quite surprised that people actually paid for some of their products. The majority of the software sales were done as a part of 'packages' and 'solutions'. There was very little innovation happening there. The only way any new 'solutions' were developed in the business were through acquisitions.
Cringely's server appears to be down. Here's a Google cache version: <a href="http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:trvMH5pW7pQJ:www.cringely.com/2013/04/22/the-decline-fall-of-ibm+&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us" rel="nofollow">http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:trvMH5p...</a>
IBM sells itself to customers as an IT company, but its true core competency is selling itself to customers who think it's an IT company. There are some very smart people there, but for the most part they mistakenly thought they were going to work for an IT company, or they are in the part which is just marketing (IBM Research comes out with some truly amazing stuff, which is basically just marketing to convince companies to buy services from IBM).
website is down, the sweet irony... Now haven´t seen the opinion, I'm sure I have read the same already (over and over). IBM is not declining. To be magnanimous, I´d say it is only declining for narrow minded tech people who can see past their area of expertise. They are not investing, they are not innovating, they are cutting jobs in the US, bla bla bla. Well, they've been compounding at over 10% for the investor for the last 10 years, sure enough it's just a lucky strike or a mirage, right? <i>yawn</i>
IBM was my former employer. This has been going on for a long time in the U.S. All one needs to do is go to this site:<p><a href="http://www.endicottalliance.org/" rel="nofollow">http://www.endicottalliance.org/</a><p>And read the forums.
Since his sight seems to be down I'm left commenting on the headline [1](sigh) but my guess is that the arguments are the same as they are for the 'decline and fall of Microsoft' or any other company where their relative standing in a market that changed dramatically over their life, also changed the way in which folks perceived them.<p>Not to get all Grey Beard on y'all but back in the day IBM was the big behemoth and startups like Sun Microsystems or Microsoft even were the challengers. IBM was created when computers filled rooms, businesses ran on paper processes, and "uploading your database" consisted of tens or hundreds of young women typing on mechanical contraptions called "card punches." <i>And they are still here and still making money.</i><p>And that last bit is what amazes me. Look at the 'big names' when they started, Rand, Sperry, Univac, Cray, Control Data, Digital Equipment Corporation, Etc. They are on track to become the first 100 year old "computer" company. (depending on when you think of it as becoming one) and they continue to dominate in patents issued.<p>What IBM has created is a very <i>durable</i> technology corporation, which is up there with Corning Glass and DOW Chemical. Somehow I suspect they will prove Cringley wrong.<p>[1] Ok so I read the cached copy and as I expected Cringely is extrapolating out from a few point changes into some apocalyptic demise. Previous columnists in Datamation predicted that once IBM's monopoly over peripherals was broken (1977?) they were doomed as well. Didn't happen of course.
"Decline and fall" because IBM missed one earnings target after 4 years of positive earnings surprises (or more, I didn't look any farther back than 2009). Seems a bit preemptive.<p>The author's chief complaint seems to be that the management is incompetent, but IBM has been known for excellent financial management for the past 2 decades, and the CEOs have not changed recently.
A 101 processor machine with 4 cores each and 5.5ghz that is actually sold and profitable does not sound like something a fallen company can pull...<p>It sounds like a machine a business would use too, you know, like someone named International Business Machines might build and sell.
I think the first time I saw Cringely predict the death of IBM, it was in Accidental Empires, where he was confident that their mainframe business, and therefore their entire company, would collapse at the beginning of 2000 because of the Y2K bug.
decline and fall of IBM? IBM transformed itself from a manufacturing company to one of the largest services company in the world. HP, Dell, everyone is getting out of the hardware business (low margin, etc.) and following IBM's lead (HP bought EDS and is trying to get rid of their hardware business. Dell bought Perot Systems 4 years ago and is in the process of going private so it can transform itself into a mini-IBM).<p>IBM's return on invested capital grew from 14.92 (2003) to 31.39 (2012).<p>HP from 9.98 (2006) ROIC to 14.97 (2012)<p>DELL from 43.33 (2003) to 11.32 (2012)<p>GOOG from 30.56 (2003) to 15.29 (2012) <=== going into the hardware business (MOTOROLA) is a bad idea for GOOG<p>MSFT from 17.66 (2003) to 22.66 (2012)<p>AAPL from 1.55 (2003) to 42.84 (2012)<p>If you noticed, IBM's ROIC is higher than other tech companies except Apple.
IBM is doing quite well. They are not falling at all. Yes they are not what they used to be , but they dont need to look like the new hotness to survive. IBM provides very high quality services for medium and big businesses. I'm not sure i get your point , just look at the numbers , they are quite good.