Thread regarding IBM layoffs

@1awp the problem I see is the "new" "strategic" list is full of things IBM is not good at. Does IBM plan a future of being 4th or 5th in markets like cloud, security, consulting, analytics? Does Watson ever get off the ground? This plan makes IBM an insignficant player.

I can see it going one of two ways- either Ginni and the board finally see the light and dump IBM Cloud and all associated services staff, or they dump SWG, Systems, and Services. One scenario leaves a skeleton crew business with cash they aren’t capable of investing to mature a product that the market has already lapped multiple times. The other scenario returns IBM to conditions pre-Softlayer acquisition.

1uki. You have hit the nail on the head. Management IS the problem. They have s---ed this company dry. IBM will spin/sell off legacy services (think IBM India). YES its a lot of revenue, BUT it’s low margin revenue (25% or less). BAIN will gladly take it, as they specialize in “rightsizing” “legacy”/OLD business models. IBM will stuff the spin/sell off with as many people as they can (IBM learned this from the Intel server sell off) and let Bain deal with the downsizing. How will Bain turn the Purchased services business around??? They will right size the services division via dumping the bloated management and over head. Remember that is what Bain does best!!! They take tired old business models, and right size them over 3-5 years so they can take those leaner and meaner companies public. IT”S THEIR BUSINESS MODEl. How sad is it that the current IBM management team can’t seem to do what BAIN has done for the past 25 years. I guess Watson just never got programmed to look internally. So that dumps maybe 150-175k worth of heads. IBM keeps “strategic” services, along with “as a services” offerings (think SW especially Z). IBM will also keep the labs and their associated patent portfolio, along with the IP business (think the past 20 years worth of IBM investments). So that leaves just one last piece of business. HW. IBM will sell off Power and DASD. My guess is to either HPE or Cisco. Both of those companies have well installed channel organizations, and they both can benefit from the technology embedded into those respective products. IBM will most likely keep the System Z. Why??? It’s the only game in town, so they can exploit the margins that come along with being the only game in town. ALSO they will exploit the 1 trillion dollar 50 year legacy system Z SW stack. So there you have it. IBM dumps 175k worth of heads for the price of approx 20billion in revenue. IBM sells Power and DASD for maybe 3-5 billion. The remaining “new” IBM has “strategic” services (cloud, cognative, “as a service”, security, strategic consulting, analytics), System Z, IP (think farming past IBM investments), the labs (think patents), and finally SW (this is moving into as a service BUT there still is a large part that is ‘t There yet). What is the “new” IBM worth???? Most likely 55-60 billion in revenue, BUT it has a much higher margin (most likely 50% or more) and don’t forget this revenue gets delivered via a much leaner IBM (think 150k worth of heads).

More BUs or business will been on the sales counter！

IBM will be a legacy brand soon.

Services for sure has to go.

wasn't it north of 30% of revenue?

The board has to go. A thick layer of line management bloat has to go. Anything that cannot INNOVATE technologically has to go.

You just gotta chat up an IBM client to understand the shocking disconnect between IBM management, products, and practices. Management is bleeding the company dry.

The company needs an immediate infusion of technological talent. "New blood", to quote IBM itself, the likes of Mark Z, Satya S, Sundar P. They just get it and can rebuild the empire with the resources IBM has left.

Do that and the pipelines of opportunity will reopen.

Stupid is a good word to use when discussing anyone who works for IBM today and is not looking to get the hell out. The company is in steep decline and nothing will save it, especially not Red Hat.

Stay proud

That's stupid. Amazon succeeded precisely because they started just with books, and could learn logistics while shipping something small and cheap. Sears? It took two weeks to six weeks to get something to a customer from the moment something was ordered if they were lucky. The whole catalog operation including the supply and logistics chain would have needed to be shut down and rebuilt from scratch one way or another, because people preferred the far superior in store experience by far. Sears could have never done this, and even now, their home appliance and fulfillment delivery services, now known as Innovel, remain the lowest regarded in the industry.