Microsoft is laying off 1500 employees in Azure and Google is laying off 100 in it's cloud unit. Can IBM be far behind with the wave of silent layoffs this summer ?
https://www.datacenterdynamics.com/en/news/google-and-microsoft-laying-off-hundreds-in-cloud-units/
"Hybrid Cloud" is just a fancy marketing term for mixed on-site infrastructure (your own servers) with off-site infrastructure (somebody else's servers). Anyone who has their own servers (even something in their house) and uses servers located elsewhere can be said to have their own hybrid cloud.
Having servers spread all over the place is the easy part. Having software that can work across all that stuff and manage things efficiently and reliably is the not-so-easy part. When an IBM salesman says "DB2 and Websphere work great on hybrid clouds", all that means is that 1. They'll be happy to sell you a DB2 or Websphere license no matter what kind of server you are running (private or public), and 2. You'll be able to manage the DB2 and Websphere servers no matter where they are located, and they'll all be able to talk to each other and be functional.
Vapor technology? No. The evolution of the Internet and IP networking made all this possible. Vapor marketing-speak? You be the judge.
Is there an IBM Hybrid cloud or is this just vapor technology from IBM Consulting and the CIO ? It shouldn't surprise anyone if it's all sleight of hand from both these groups to sell the IBM's open source AI vaporware.
Might as well try selling ice to the Eskimos.
R*d Hat? Are you serious?
The company that IBM bought is not the company they got. Hat promoted a bunch of blondes with no technical experience and no knowledge of open source and you think the acquired company can deliver?
Let’s be honest, only Raleigh folk’s made money in this deal.
Dig Deeper. Ask around if you don’t know what I am talking about.
2ivh You have summarized IBM’s problems quite nicely
"...It’s not pretty, but Ginni and Sam doubled down on GTS infrastructure instead of pursuing cloud and AK is stuck with what they left behind. It will take quite some time to repair the damage Sam and especially Ginni left in their wake if it can be repaired at all..."
This statement says it all, but can be very easy to misinterpret for those that weren't there. IBM's vision of future computing was very different from what the rest of the world wanted. IBM's vision consisted of enterprise clients paying IBM for managed computing services, which would be provided by IBM administrators in offshore countries manually provisioning computing resources. IBM would control the entire baseline stack, from IBM hardware (servers) to IBM infrastructure software (z/OS, AIX, DB2, Websphere) and especially IBM personnel (masses of system administrators).
The rest of the world wanted automation. They wanted the freedom to implement virtual machines on either their own hardware (private clouds) or on third-party service providers (public clouds). They wanted to get rid of manual provisioning by human system administrators, along with the time and money that those administrators cost. This was all happening when "lights-out" data centers were just coming into being. Those new data centers were largely unmanned, with only skeleton crews to keep the lights on. The customers for those data centers did not want to replicate the mainframe era, with thousands of administrators required to get anything done. So they did away with them.
The damage you speak of cannot be repaired, because it simply reflects an evolving world. IBM is TOO MUCH...too much money, too much time, too much staff. It's a top-heavy company demanding tribute from a world that does not require IBM technology nearly as much as it once did. It would be different if IBM used its Red Hat acquisition to implement more of what today's world wants (and it sort of does), but all too often it seems that Red Hat is just a vehicle to help sell IBM's back catalog of old hits.
Everyone defines cloud differently. Wall street can’t tell you how each big player (google, Microsoft, and Amazon) define cloud as they all define it differently. IBM definitely defines cloud differently than the big boys. Why? Because they were way late to the game, and they don’t play in a vast majority of what the big boys would define as cloud. That’s why the big boys are growing at double digits, and IBM is only growing at single digits. When you only play in 10-15% of the opportunities due to what cloud offerings you have, you only get low single digit growth. It’s not pretty, but Ginni and Sam doubled down on GTS infrastructure instead of pursuing cloud and AK is stuck with what they left behind. It will take quite some time to repair the damage Sam and especially Ginni left in their wake if it can be repaired at all. I suspect AK has decided it can’t be repaired and that is why you are seeing IBM cut all of the partnership deals and buying their way into innovative SW deals.
I haven't heard anyone mention Cloud Paks in over a year. Do we still sell them.
i think they got rid of most of them a while back when IBM decided Data and AI was the next darling (Feb 2021??), all the cloud folk reasonable levels were replaced by similar folk from data and AI. The cloud dudes all got RA'd, thenn slowly they have been removing others from cloud including DE's
As near as I can tell, the only thing left of cloud (at IBM) are "Cloud Paks". And even those are now marketed more as AI vehicles. "Cloud Paks" plus, of course, whatever consulting there is out there.
That just means server/hosting, plus buzz/factor and maybe some Web-based GUI
IBM still has a cloud?