Ginni out at IBM

[moonpie23]

Said she was retiring. Jim Whitehurst (Redhat) to be president, Arvin Krishna to replace Ginni...

revenue was up...

[budwom]

Ha, "retiring." Amazed she wasn't ousted years ago, though she did not have an easy job.

[cspan37421]

Indeed. Wikipedia article overview mentions, "... presiding over 24 consecutive quarters of revenue decline."

[YmoBeThere]

How many quarters of declining revenue were there before she assumed the CEO role?

[PackMan97]

IBM traditionally asks CEO's to retire once they hit 60, so Ginni lasting until 62 is actually a big thing. My guess is her purchase of Red Hat got her another year to wait for the dust to settle on that.

https://www.computerworld.com/articl...ob-at-60-.html

[fuse]

Surprised Whitehurst was not named CEO, although it does appear barring changes in the future, he is next in line.

Aiming to be polite, it is puzzling that the head of IBM cloud is now CEO.
IBM cloud isn’t market relevant.

I don’t blame IBM for doubling down and making a move that shows cloud is important to them. Its not really any different than Google hiring Kurian for GCP.
Oracle Cloud is even less relevant than IBM cloud.

[howardlander]

Aiming to be polite, it is puzzling that the head of IBM cloud is now CEO.
IBM cloud isn’t market relevant.

I agree. But it was amazing she lasted as long as she did. Look back at the 10 years or so: there has been one of if not the greatest creation of wealth in the history of our planet and IBM, which was at one point one of our leading companies has a market cap that is 30 billion dollars LESS than 10 years ago (ref: https://www.marketcaphistory.com/ibm/). They have missed every single opportunity that the tech market has created and while you can't blame it all on her, it's not exactly a good look. Huh, maybe treating the employees with such disrespect that it becomes difficult to hire and retain top notch talent isn't the best idea. Oh but Ginni's net worth is 90 million according to the web, so I guess it all worked out after all! I was never an employee at IBM, but I did work there on contract for about 15 months, and the atmosphere was truly poisonous. Really nice people, interesting work and the worst professional experience of my career...

Howard

[PackMan97]

Surprised Whitehurst was not named CEO, although it does appear barring changes in the future, he is next in line.

Aiming to be polite, it is puzzling that the head of IBM cloud is now CEO.
IBM cloud isn’t market relevant.

I don’t blame IBM for doubling down and making a move that shows cloud is important to them. Its not really any different than Google hiring Kurian for GCP.
Oracle Cloud is even less relevant than IBM cloud.

Cloud is actually IBM's fastest growing business unit so there is that.

Krishna is a tech guy who has worked his way up in management and fairly quickly once he got into senior roles. He's got a PhD in Electrical and Computer engineering and holds a number of patents. From what I can tell he's focused on building better products than on futzing with the numbers like business/sales guys are prone to do. Everyone I've known that has met Krishna has come away very impressed.

I think there is a lot of hope that he can do for IBM what Nadella did for Microsoft.

[cspan37421]

I remember reading that for years IBM was spending more on its patent portfolio than anyone. And while I am not keen on patent trolls, that's more of a product of how the system is being implemented rather than its existence (anyone remember "method for swinging on a swing"?

Anyway with IBM's terrible numbers, I kind of wonder about that massive patent shopping spree, "to what end?" When are they going to cash in on it?

[budwom]

I remember reading that for years IBM was spending more on its patent portfolio than anyone. And while I am not keen on patent trolls, that's more of a product of how the system is being implemented rather than its existence (anyone remember "method for swinging on a swing"?

Anyway with IBM's terrible numbers, I kind of wonder about that massive patent shopping spree, "to what end?" When are they going to cash in on it?

Not sure what you mean by spending on patent portfolio vis a vis a shopping spree. I don't know about a shopping spree, but I do know that in the decades I was there, they led the world for many, many years in patent filings, primarily because within the very large R&D budget, they did a whole lot of R (research, much done in Yorktown Heights). And while I don't have any numbers, I know they've cashed in handily over the years...(licensing, patent swaps)...

p.s. I would not use the term "patent trolls" wrt IBM...they received gobs of patents and defended them strongly, but I never, ever saw evidence of patent trolling from them. From others, yes.

https://fortune.com/2019/01/07/ibm-t...in-prominence/

Evidently they're still on top with patents, according to this Fortune article.

[PackMan97]

Patent trolls by definition have no assets and are thus immune to countersuits. The produce nothing of value.

[budwom]

Patent trolls by definition have no assets and are thus immune to countersuits. The produce nothing of value.

This I know, but I have no idea why IBM is mentioned in this context.

[cspan37421]

To be clear, I don't consider IBM a patent troll. But being known for accumulating a large portfolio of patents (not all internally) can lead to a similarity in the public perception. The line is blurry but obviously it depends on the merits of the patent, producing products/services based on it or good faith licensing, etc etc.

My point in bringing it up was that it is kind of amazing that having the largest (or one of the largest) patent portfolios hasn't stopped their longstanding slide.

[PackMan97]

To be clear, I don't consider IBM a patent troll. But being known for accumulating a large portfolio of patents (not all internally) can lead to a similarity in the public perception. The line is blurry but obviously it depends on the merits of the patent, producing products/services based on it or good faith licensing, etc etc.

My point in bringing it up was that it is kind of amazing that having the largest (or one of the largest) patent portfolios hasn't stopped their longstanding slide.

Earlier this year IBM joined the LOT Network, which is actually really a huge deal.

Most large companies use patents defensively, not offensively. In the patent arena it's very easy (for small companies) to engage in asymetric warfare. The risks are small and the rewards big. Going up against Google on a patent can reap huge rewards and if you are small, there is very little Google can do beside put you out of business (which you just start up another, get a new patent rinse and repeat).

[PackMan97]

Earlier this year IBM joined the LOT Network, which is actually really a huge deal.

Most large companies use patents defensively, not offensively. In the patent arena it's very easy (for small companies) to engage in asymetric warfare. The risks are small and the rewards big. Going up against Google on a patent can reap huge rewards and if you are small, there is very little Google can do beside put you out of business (which you just start up another, get a new patent rinse and repeat).

forgot to do that linky thing.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/ibm/202.../#52c34e0a1497

[budwom]

To be clear, I don't consider IBM a patent troll. But being known for accumulating a large portfolio of patents (not all internally) can lead to a similarity in the public perception. The line is blurry but obviously it depends on the merits of the patent, producing products/services based on it or good faith licensing, etc etc.

My point in bringing it up was that it is kind of amazing that having the largest (or one of the largest) patent portfolios hasn't stopped their longstanding slide.

I'm sorry, but I find that to be preposterous. They develop more patents than anyone, period...I have never seen any "public perception" that have a public perception of being patent trolls. Nor do I see any blurriness in the line.
But I agree the patents have not prevented their revenue stagnation, that's clearly true.

[LasVegas]

I'm sorry, but I find that to be preposterous. They develop more patents than anyone, period...I have never seen any "public perception" that have a public perception of being patent trolls. Nor do I see any blurriness in the line.
But I agree the patents have not prevented their revenue stagnation, that's clearly true.

Probably because of them having basically no direct interaction with consumers. So when you see IBM go against the likes of apple, google, amazon, Zillow, Expedia, etc. who actually deliver products to a regular consumer, the public can view that as being a patent troll.

[budwom]

Probably because of them having basically no direct interaction with consumers. So when you see IBM go against the likes of apple, google, amazon, Zillow, Expedia, etc. who actually deliver products to a regular consumer, the public can view that as being a patent troll.

well, ok, I can see that as a distinctly uninformed view by "the public"...but people in the business know better. Everyone, including Apple, google, amazon, zillow, ALL of them robustly defend their own patents as well.

[PackMan97]

Probably because of them having basically no direct interaction with consumers. So when you see IBM go against the likes of apple, google, amazon, Zillow, Expedia, etc. who actually deliver products to a regular consumer, the public can view that as being a patent troll.

Then the public are ignorant.

IBM is many things (I'm not a big fan, but I'm hopeful they can change like Microsoft has changed), but a patent troll they are not.

If you can tell me a lawsuit in which you think they are behaving trollish, I'm open to listening but as far as I know they've not been a bad behavior doing dumb thinks like asserting a patent over hyperlinks or other nonsense like that.

[LasVegas]

Then the public are ignorant.

IBM is many things (I'm not a big fan, but I'm hopeful they can change like Microsoft has changed), but a patent troll they are not.

If you can tell me a lawsuit in which you think they are behaving trollish, I'm open to listening but as far as I know they've not been a bad behavior doing dumb thinks like asserting a patent over hyperlinks or other nonsense like that.

I personally don’t hold the view of them as a patent troll. I was just responding as to why some in the public could view them as such. Case in point, I recently presented at Cisco Live! and a ton of my friends/family didn’t even know Cisco still existed.