Hacker News Reader

Comment by 63 | Hacker News Reader

> But ask an ordinary person under the age of 40 what exactly IBM does (or did), and the responses will be vague at best. “Something to do with computers, right?” was the best the Gen Zers I queried could come up with. If a Millennial knows anything about IBM, it’s Watson, the company’s prototype AI system that prevailed on Jeopardy in 2011.

I find this attitude to be fairly trite and disingenuous. Maybe we should ask millennials and zoomers what exactly it is that Goldman Sachs does or Dow or Cisco or any other large company that doesn't sell majority direct to consumer and see if we get a more intelligible answer. Just because a company isn't selling to you specifically doesn't mean it's a failure. I'm happy to criticize IBM, but let's do it for legitimate reasons (trend chasing, perhaps?) and not "my 16 year old doesn't know what they do so they must not be relevant"

View on HN

IBM used to sell computers directly to consumers. They don't do that anymore so it's normal that IBM isn't on anyone's mind for a long time now. My mom knew IBM pretty well decades ago when she was a typist. Nowadays she wouldn't have a clue if IBM still exists or what it does.

If you go back before the IBM PC, the average consumer might well know they made typewriters and probably have some notion about them selling big computers to banks and the like. They'd almost certainly be vague on anything beyond that.

Fifty years ago, when I had nothing to do with the tech industry, I knew that IBM made computers. I didn't know what those computers looked like or who used them, but I knew they made them.

IBM used to sell computers directly to consumers.

For a brief, maybe fifteen year period out of their 100 year history. And even those weren't big sellers. Point being, I don't know that it was ever reasonable to ask the "man on the street" what IBM does, and expect anything but a vague answer.

Hell, my mother used to program their 370s and System/38s (precursor to the AS400). I haven't asked, but if asked the same question, I wouldn't be shocked if her answer were, "wait, they're still in business?"

My grandmother has been retired for years, she worked as an accountant.

Any time there's a conversation about computers, she'll pipe in with remarks about how "Compaq makes the best computers".

> For a brief, maybe fifteen year period out of their 100 year history.

More like 34 years.

The IBM PC debuted in 1981, and they sold their PC business to Lenovo in 2005.

> And even those weren't big sellers.

Still, let's not downplay the impact that the IBM PC had on the industry.

More like 24 years, but point taken. I thought the PC end was sold off in the late 90s.

What? They absolutely still do, it's through Lenovo and IBM still writes the majority of firmware and drivers for it.

And Lenovo is a separate company even if IBM does some of the under-the-covers engineering. The average consumer (or even the not so average one) has no idea what firmware is or drivers are and Lenovo isn't even much of a consumer brand anyway.

I'm not sure it's so much criticism as observing that they've gone from being the Ford of computers to being... IDK, some parts manufacturer for cars that nobody's aware of unless they're in the industry.

I think the point is that IBM is ostensibly a "tech" company and most people in tech (young and old) have never dealt with them nor do they know any of their products. We vaguely remember seeing IBM-branded desktops decades 30+ years ago, but that's about it.

Ask people about any large company in their own industry and they would know at least one of their products or services, and that includes Goldman Sachs, Dow, or Cisco.

>most people in tech (young and old) have never dealt with them nor do they know any of their products

It depends on how "working in tech" is defined.

If you work in IT at a Fortune 500 bank, insurance company, telco, manufacturing company, etc. then you almost certainly Know who IBM, SAP, Oracle, etc. are. If you work for FAANGMULA and adjacent SV companies you probably don't especially if you are under 35 or so.

Thats because FAANGMULA is mostly composed of media companies pretending to be tech companies. The business model is 100% a media and entertainment buisness model for most of the companies on that list.

I don't think it is even controversial to argue this so long as we can agree that a company cannot call itself a tech company simply because they hired a lot of programmers and are paying them decent salaries.

A tech company is a company that makes most of their money selling computer hardware and software products (and to a lesser extent, services and support for software and hardware products although it could be argued that is a different classification but with substantial overlap).

Notably, it has to be computers, not entertainment delivered via computers, or ads delivered through computers, and not industrials or pharmaceuticals or any number of other "technical but not 'tech' as in computers" industries. Tech is and has always meant IT, as in companies that are in the information and computers businesses. Where programmers happen to work, make the highest salary, or be the most highly concentrated has never mattered.

> fact a very tiny percentage of the budgets for these new "tech companies" are put into research and development of new products

Have you read how much cash Meta has burned on VR? Apple on its R&D? Nvidia? Amazon and Microsoft and the rest on cloud (that requires R&D too, they can’t just go out and buy it).

> The business model is 100% a media and entertainment buisness model for most of the companies on that list.

Nonsense if you read any of the financial statements, except for Netflix.

Gen Z is 1997-2012, aged from 11 to 26. It’s likely that the Gen Z they’re most experienced with are strongly biased to the 26 y/o end and that’s old enough to know a few things.

IBM is still fairly active at job fairs. Most Gen Z CS/CE/EE majors will know of IBM because they applied there for a job or internship. They'd pay shit but if you had a beating pulse and attended the right college they'd hire you. A great backup option in the 2010s

Millennial here: Rational rose and PowerPC. Both leave a stink in my mouth.

And how could anyone in Canada forget the Phoenix pay system. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_pay_system

Article's paywalled, so apologies if this is out of context, but it seems like a legit point in this case. From the 1950's through the 90's IBM was familiar to consumers. You'd probably have used multiple IBM products at some point even if you didn't own one; you certainly knew about them. If nothing else, IBM typewriters and PCs were ubiquitous. That version of IBM is gone, and it seems reasonable to argue that this is a negative. (Whether or not you agree with it.)

I think this is overly critical and I'm not sure I can see the justification. My understanding from that quote is that IBM is a name that everyone "knows", but fewer and fewer persons actually know what IBM even does anymore or why IBM is a household name.

Your additional examples aren't really counter examples most probably for most people; you've just listed additional companies that are likely common enough names that no one else outside the tech/finance sphere really knows why the name is a known name. I don't see this as disingenuous, I see as an accurate reflection of the modern interpretation of many of these older companies. Apple for example is "relatively" old(er), but you can ask anyone what you might get from Apple right now and probably they can name at least one thing like "oh yeah they make good phones" or "I like their laptops."

My entire professional career has been in IT/Programming, and the best I can tell you about what IBM offers is "eh, you can pay a ton for a contract for some server hardware/software. Hardware support is fine, but the rest is a dice roll on what you're actually getting for your money." I don't associate IBM at this point with a specific service or product I'd seek so much as just "this is a tech company that you pay a ton of money to and hope it works out for your project".

Though I will give them credit for their LTO tape hardware -- that is solid and straight forward enough for my tastes.

My personal experience, half the time I talk to IBM sales team or even their engineering team, I end up with far more questions than answers, and I get the distinct impression I'm offending the IBM rep for even questioning what they're saying, no matter how ridiculous their statements are. I know what the words they're saying mean and I understand what the tech is, but when I have practical questions about their design choices or implementation guidance and the IBM employees act as if they resent me for questioning them, I too wonder why IBM is really trying to accomplish in our meetings -- do they want to sell something that will help with my problem scope or do they just want lock-in? This question isn't unique to IBM naturally, but if that's what ends up occupying my mind after a meeting with IBM representatives, I'm quite certain it's an indicator that it's not something I want my team to get wrapped up in.

Edit: Changed "else outside the tech sphere" to "else outside the tech/finance sphere"

Reply on news.ycombinator.com