Re: The most dangerous product the IBM mainframe has ever seen
From: Robert Wagner (robert.deletethis_at_wagner.net)
Date: 06/04/04
- Previous message: Robert Wagner: "Re: Programs expecting "initial values""
- In reply to: S Comstock: "The most dangerous product the IBM mainframe has ever seen"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Date: Thu, 03 Jun 2004 23:31:49 GMT
scomstock@aol.com (S Comstock) wrote:
> But what I found interesting is the implicit
>recognition of the IBM mainframe as a major player even today. Most
>competitors, at least publicly, denigrate the mainframe as not being a factor
>in the industry any more. Now an open admission that mainframes are still a
>significant part of the market. Somehow I find that encouraging.
Don't confuse high profit with high market share.
IBM still derives 70% of its Net Profit from mainframes. The profit now comes
primarily from consulting services, support and software rather than hardware.
IBM executives know that, but middle managers and sales people still think their
objective is Pushing Iron. Even contracting managers. In a talk with one of them
yesterday, she kept referring to contractors as "resources", meaning commodities
disposed of as easily as a used Kleenex. They have no concept of team building
or long-term strategy. They operate like a Body Shop, lurching from one
short-term project to the next. (I should talk.) Their acquisition of
Pricewaterhouse Coopers three years ago was intended by top management to change
that attitude. It hasn't filtered down to the trenches.
In a consumer economy where computer purchasing decisions are made by end-user
middle managers attuned to Brand Loyalty, the IBM name continues to have some
cachet. IBM is the Safe Choice .. for services as well as hardware. They'll hold
the manager's hand and promise to not let him or her look stupid in exchange for
a blank check.
Can such an exploitive relationship survive in an 'efficient' marketplace? The
short answer is yes. Human nature doesn't change. IBM's Watson tapped into it
just as his mentor, NCR's Patterson, had. At the micro level, the marketplace is
grossly INefficient. Sea changes, expressing real efficiency, come from top
management. Industries enjoying 90-100% Gross Profit impose no pressure for
change on top management. They are IBM itself, pharmaceuticals, financial
services and government. Also, companies with no pressure due to a monopoly,
such as utilities, some consumer products and vertical market domination.
- Previous message: Robert Wagner: "Re: Programs expecting "initial values""
- In reply to: S Comstock: "The most dangerous product the IBM mainframe has ever seen"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Relevant Pages
|
