It appears that IBM mostly gave up on developing technology in-house and turned to the financial engineering business model in the early 2000's, maybe even earlier. IBM became the Department Store of the tech industry. As quoted below, IBM just was not very good at inventing and developing products internally. Whether this is true or development was hamstrung by bureaucracy or budget constraints or lack of visionary leadership, etc., the fact remains that IBM must acquire it's way to prosperity. This is a very precarious situation. It is obviously not doing too well with this growth by acquisition strategy when it comes to Cloud.
As quoted by a supposed IBM insider from Platformonomics.com in 2013.
https://www.platformonomics.com/2013/03/ibm-how-much-longer-do-the-good-times-last/
"That IBM insider said IBM has lots of cash but struggles when it tries to develop products internally.
“Realizing this, IBM’s become a holding company of sorts, buying assets, integrating them and reselling them as an IBM brand,” said this source, who remains close to IBM. That growth-by-acquisition pattern may well continue in cloud.
“IBM does not want to fund its own development because past history shows we’re not very good at it."
And herein lies the crux of the problem. If you can't develop it, you can't be a leader. In the cloud business, all IBM's Cloud competitors are big and strong on internal development of tech products. IBM is weak at this. Thus, the Cloud may be in danger of becoming a lost cause for IBM.