From: douddy@cnsvax.uwec.edu
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy
Subject: Re: IBM, what's wrong?
Date: 19 Dec 92 13:41:39 -0600
Organization: University of Wisconsin Eau Claire

> 
>    OK, I might as well fulfill your prophecy.
> 
>    IBM is a victim of their own success.  IBM has been around for more than a
> century.  In the past 100 years, their revenues have skyrocketed.  It got to
> the point where, in 1985, IBM's total revenues exceed the Gross National 
> Product of East Germany.  At that time, if IBM had been converted into a 
> nation, it would have been in the top 20 nations in the world in GNP.
> 
>    The real problem for IBM was: where do you go from up?  When you are
> already one of the biggest companies in the world, how do you improve?
> 
>    IBM is doing some things right, but a company so successful is bound to
> accumulate a big corporate beuracracy.  One thing that IBM is doing is
> pulling a "GM" by spinning offwholly-owned-but-independent subsidiaries.
> GM did this with the Saturn Corp., and Saturns are selling like mad.  IBM
> did it with Lexmark, and Lexmark has HP running scared in the very printer
> technologies that HP used to control with a tight grip.  For instance,
> Lexmark produces color PostScript inkjet printers that are faster, have
> higher resolutions, and lower prices than any similar color inkjet printers
> that HP produces.
	IBM does do MANY things right, they are certainly a very shrewed
company (and at least in IBM's early years, lucky)  But as a company who's
philosopy once seemed to be 'how much can we get out of your pocket?' I think
IBM will have leaner years in the future.  They are parasitized by clones,
microsoft, and they have taken a hit in mainframe sales (IBM really hasn't sold
the best of the best, state of the art computers since 1970's & CRAY)
	For the last two decades IBM had a almost magical advantage- It was a 
huge recognized name- and it told businesses what to buy.  Computer literacy
wasn't what it is today, and to some extent IBM soaked users for what they were
worth.  IBM's magical advantage doesn't exist anymore, they don't produce great
software, they don't produce great hardware, and they are in a very competitive
market. 
> 
>    IBM is bound to rebound.  The losses that IBM is experiencing can be blamed
> partly on the recession.  Trimming the company of payroll fat will allow the
> company to be more competitive.  IBM has been spending too much on R&D for
> them to be out forever.  IBM has a lock on many key technologies, such as high-
> temperature superconductors and the primitive technologies of moving around
> individual atoms, that could pay off BIG someday.  Other technologies are
> paying off even as IBM takes losses.
	IBM is big enough to be around for a long, long time (incidently, isn't
the HUDSON BAY COMPANY still around?)  But I think that what its producing in
its consumer markets while good, has no 'magic' advantage over the competition. 
Their R&D investments could pay off, but so could Sony's (or any other two-bit
company that hits upon an awesome patented discovery and still has the 
resources to monopolize it.)  IBM makes scientific equiptment, but I wouldn't
say it has a monopoly there either.      
> 
>    BTW, IBM is well balanced to weather the world-wide recession.  Unlike
> Commodore, IBM did not put all of its eggs in the European basket.  IBM has
	Comparing IBM to Commodore is a bit like comparing moutains and
molehills.  Even so, there's no reason that commodore still won't be a boil on
the butt of IBM in a centrury.  I think Commodore has done a few good things
lately, (A4000, A1200) and If they set the price right, maybe we could see as
many snakepit A1200's as we did snakepit-64's.

> ---
> | Marc Barrett -MB-  |  email: barrett@iastate.edu
> --------------------------------------------------

Mer Mer Christmas Marc, ( & Good Cheer! you don't get much Cheer Here)

Dustan Doud
DOUDDY@CNSVAX.Uwec.Edu
'It's not like the universe isn't going to run down anyway'
Newsgroups: comp.sys.amiga.advocacy