Why is Big Blue still big?

[DruulEmpire]

So here's the thing: I have a Dow Jones monitoring thread down in OT, and one of the thirty Dow Jones companies is IBM.  But when I think IBM, I think of the guys who missed the whole PC boat back in the Eighties, and frankly I can't recall the last time I thought of them as a brand.  Yet their earnings have been very healthy lately.  What are they doing, and what am I missing?

[TysonWarm]

Because of those IBMer commercials and they are building a smarter planet.   

[solvegas]

They exited the PC business a few years ago and sold it tp the chinese ( Lenovo ) and they are now mostly a systems integrator for large projects and the software for it. They also continue to build mainframes and supercomputers and, of course, the software for them. As a stockholder, they have been quite consistent in their profit margins and dividends. Compared to what they were back in the 60's and 70's, they are no longer goliath but they remain a strong presence in technology and they are still a technolgy innovator. Remember when people asked if the machine was IBM compatible ? I know many of our young participants may not appreciate how dominant IBM was. Imagine Intel, Microsoft, Google combined. That's how the mighty have fallen. Unlike GM though, IBM management has been able to keep it consistly profitable without the need of a goverment handout.

[Bad Kitty]

what solvegas said

[brakblake]

They exited the PC business a few years ago and sold it tp the chinese ( Lenovo ) and they are now mostly a systems integrator for large projects and the software for it. They also continue to build mainframes and supercomputers and, of course, the software for them. As a stockholder, they have been quite consistent in their profit margins and dividends. Compared to what they were back in the 60's and 70's, they are no longer goliath but they remain a strong presence in technology and they are still a technolgy innovator. Remember when people asked if the machine was IBM compatible ? I know many of our young participants may not appreciate how dominant IBM was. Imagine Intel, Microsoft, Google combined. That's how the mighty have fallen. Unlike GM though, IBM management has been able to keep it consistly profitable without the need of a goverment handout.

Hey...I remember when People used to say that......and I'm a young person!


(Though some of that may of to deal with my grandfather [mother's father] working for IBM in the 60's/70's in El Paso and with my father working computers for most of his adult life.)

[Tenshi]

when I saw the title I was thinking of F-zero. *disappointed*

[pedonbio]

I think solvegas is correct, though I see it a bit differently. In the 1960s IBM, AT&T, and Xerox were the only companies working in what is now called high-tech. At&T and Xerox stumbled in different ways, and IBM just kept chugging along.

[Palomine]

I think solvegas is correct, though I see it a bit differently. In the 1960s IBM, AT&T, and Xerox were the only companies working in what is now called high-tech. At&T and Xerox stumbled in different ways, and IBM just kept chugging along.

Yup, and they had the sense to get out of (sell off) their PC business when it was clear that it had become a commodity business. It's taken HP over a decade longer to finally figure out the same thing: http://money.cnn.com/2011/08/18/technology/hp_pc_spinoff/index.htm

 

[naken]

The PC business is a “commodity” for everybody except Intel and Microsoft. They sit on fat margins while everybody else gets peanuts.