Thread regarding IBM layoffs

Big 4 cloud providers poised to surpass $115B in revenue this year

https://siliconangle.com/2021/02/07/big-4-cloud-providers-revenue-poised-surpass-115b-year/

Let's see what they have to say about IBM:

‘Oracle and IBM have clouds too’

We hear this frequently and so we’ve put Oracle Corp. and IBM Corp. on the chart. You can see they both have a respectable presence in the data set with 132 and 81 response, respectively. Oracle has a positive Net Score of 16.7% and IBM a negative 6.2%.

What does that mean? It says that among the 132 survey respondents using Oracle Cloud, 16.7% more customers are spending more on Oracle’s cloud than are spending less. In the case of IBM, it says more customers are spending less than spending more. Even though Oracle’s numbers are positive, both companies are in the “red zone” and show far less momentum than the leaders.

We’ve said many times that the good news is that Oracle and IBM at least have clouds. But they are not direct competitors of the Big 4 as hyperscale cloud infrastructure players – they’re just not. They each have a large software business, IBM has a huge services presence (it’s the majority of IBM’s revenue) and they both can migrate customers to the cloud and market hybrid cloud services. Their definition of cloud is most certainly different than that of AWS – which is fine, but both companies use what we call a “kitchen sink” method of reporting their cloud business.

Oracle, for example, includes cloud and license support in its cloud numbers, often with revenue recognition at time of contract with a term that’s renewable, and it also includes on-premises fees for database and middleware. If you want to call that cloud, fine. IBM is just as bad, maybe worse, and includes so much legacy stuff in its cloud number to hide the ball that it’s just not worth trying to unpack for this post. We have previously tried and frankly it’s just not a good use of time.

by
| 1796 views | | 2 replies (last ) | Reply
Post ID: @OP+19jBHrDw

2 replies (most recent on top)

There is only room for 3 major successful players in Public Cloud. That's the way the tech market operates. AWS, Microsoft Azure, and Google have won these positions.
Cloud is now fully mainstream or even past mainstream into laggard adoption. The die has been cast and, unfortunately, IBM has lost and failed at Public Cloud. This is a catastrophic event for the former king of data centers.
Perhaps, IBM will be a niche player and retain some of its most loyal customers. The bigger problem is that Cloud is super capital intensive and is unlikely to be very profitable for Big Blue who will lack economies of scale due to a small cloud client base.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @mec+19jBHrDw

In marketing Z there has always been a go to market rule that says “if you fall far enough behind in Z, technology wise, no matter what you do, you can never catch-up” For the most part that has held true for everyone of my Z customers. IBM you are now seeing your future You have fallen far enough behind the 4 big players, that you can’t catch up. I suspect IBM’s exec’s and consultants know this quite well, and have decided to streamline the business to make themselves purchase ready.

by
| | Reply
Post ID: @yln+19jBHrDw

Post a reply

: