IBM hasn't failed in anything, it doesn't want to play in low profit business, For example IBM hasn't been investing in wafer capacity at its Leading FAb, IBM used to have surplus wafer capacity after it was done for chips for its Servers, If you remember few years ago IBM made game processors for all 3 major brands, Sony, Xbox & Wii, but slowly it decided that it doesn't want to play in this business anymore and did not invest in capacity at advanced nodes, and gave this business to other Foundries, and finally it gave up Design for game processor as well and now AMD is doing it,
Years ago, System & tech group was on its own and had a Exec with Hardware background and had bigger share of IBM revenue. BUt in last few years, its is merged under Software & systems and now headed by a non-hardware Exec.
It is telling us how Hardware is going to play less & less role in overall IBM and it is by choice of playing in Higher margin,but not because it can't make good semiconductors or servers, IBM can open a FAB in China too, but choose not too, doesn't want to play in commodity business,
It means, quite simply that IBM stifles innovation and vision, is so hide-bound that it unwilling to take a risk, and that their long-term prospects are hopeless. But just go back and look at your "stock performance charts", and don't consider reality at all. That's what IBM does. IBM is failing, a fact that is apparent to anybody who doesn't have their nose buried in the "stock performance charts".
"Considering only their "stock performance". Heading for the "killing field"."
Not sure what this is supposed to mean. But a company's stock performance is - ultimately - a reflection of the company's earnings and business performance over time. IBM has proven itself to be successful despite having a history "littered with failed opportunities." This of course doesn't guarantee anything about the future. But a long-term track record must count for something.
"The history of IBM is littered with failed oportunities."
This may be true (for IBM and many other companies as well). But "hindsight is 20/20" as they say, and the company has not exactly been unsuccessful in the meantime. If you compare a long-term chart of IBM's stock performance with that of AMD, for example, I know which one I would rather bet on.
40+ year IBM veteran. Much of what 'sofianitz' says is true about IBM Marketing. But Marketing is -not- in charge at IBM. Finance is. Financial controls at IBM are staggeringly HUGE. Half the company is employed checking the other half--and each other. It is correct, as 'sofianitz' says, that a project must overcome a daunting set of financial hurdles (and watering down) to see the light of day.
But those hurdles are not put in place by Marketing. The financial controls process that is enforced by Finance exhaust Development, Marketing, Sales--everyone--and take so long and require such effort, as to make delivery of products and services a 'market-missing' certainty. The Watson project is a great example. Why would it take THREE YEARS from the "Jeopardy" extravaganza to bring actual products to the market? And it's not really done to this day.
Financial technocrats are in charge at IBM. Not Technologists or Marketers. Technologists and Marketers are interchangable parts at IBM who are either "surplused" in early or mid-career, or, exhausted by the process, coast out of the company to retirement.
Only Finance people would think that 'customers know what they want...'