This is so fascinating to me. I mean how IBM keeps taking over other companies, but they consistently deliver low quality/bottom-tier services and products. Why do they keep doing the same thing again and again? How are they generating actual revenue this way?
Ok, so does anyone remember 'Watson'? It was the chatgpt before chatgpt. they built it in house. Why didn't they compete with OpenAI like Google and Anthropic are doing, with in-house tools? They have a mature PowerPC (Power9+? now?)setup, lots of talent to make ML/LLMs work and lots of existing investment in datacenters and getting GPU-intense workloads going.
I don't disagree that this acquisition is good strategy, I'm just fascinated (Schadenfreude?) to witness the demise of confluent now. I think economists should study this, it might help avert larger problems.
Watson was a marketing exercise designed to sell a bunch of disconnected text and image processing libraries pulled together by consulting services. It did not function as advertised.
At one point we worked with a large energy company that was basically sold something LLM-like (large-scale indexing and searching/querying of documents) in 2016 or so. IBM had a team of 90 people doing full-time data ingestion for something like 26,000 documents. We got asked to do a counter-product in two weeks, which was literally just a TF-IDF search and some smarts around ingesting different types of documents. Both solutions performed approximately equally, except one cost something in the order of $185m and one cost $40k. Watson continued running for about a year until an external data science contractor realised they could query Watson for highly confidential board meeting notes, and it would provide full previews into the documents. The project was shuttered shortly after.
Yep, and I think they've already used the Watson brand for a good bunch of different technologies, and most if them have been retired for lack of success. In fact, seems like a couple weeks ago they've sold a good chunk of Watson Healthcare to private equity [0]. Edit: When I talk about the lack of success, I talk not only about market success, but the usefulness of the product.
Until 3/4 years go I was in healthcare for 15 years, a good bunch of them being partners with IBM in radiology imaging solutions. I've been in their IBM La Gaude (former) research/presentations lab a couple times and I've seen a lot of their Watson product come and go, without much success. I have to say that I've seen a couple that were very interesting, but were mostly statistical, with no AI/LLM/... involvement.
And don't talk me about Softlayer/Bluemix. Or their private cloud racks that I cannot even remember their name...
> Watson was a marketing exercise designed to sell a bunch of disconnected text and image processing libraries pulled together by consulting services. It did not function as advertised.
Okay, but why can't IBM enter the LLM business reviving the Watson brand?
Why in the world would economists need to study this? It's been known that large bureaucracies have been dysfunctional for over a couple of decades now if not centuries. The large reason is because 1) the incentives to do great work are not there (most of the credit for a huge company's success goes to the CEO who gets 100X the salary of a regular worker while delivering usually pretty much nothing) 2) politics usually plays a huge role which gives a huge advantage to your competition (i.e. your competition needs to spend less time on politics and more time on the actual product) and 3) human beings don't functionally work well in groups larger than 100-250 due to the overwhelming complexity of the communication needed in order to make this type of structure work. Incentives though I think are the primary driver - most people at companies like IBM don't have any incentives to actually care about the product they produce and that's the secret behind the ruin of almost every large company.
Edit: you also seem to be giving too much credence to Watson. Watson was actually mostly a marketing tool designed to win in Jeopardy and nothing else. It was constructed specifically to compete in that use-case and was nowhere near to the architecture of a general transformer which is capable of figuring out meta-patterns within language and structurally understanding language. You can read about Watson's design and architecture here if you're curious: https://www.cs.cornell.edu/courses/cs4740/2011sp/papers/AIMa...
More like we need psychologists to ask "why are companies still working with IBM's efficiencies 30 years after its peak?" The workers don't have to care but the businesses dealing with IBM should.
I may be wrong but I think it's mostly for things like enterprise support in case something goes wrong. IBM has had a large footprint in enterprises (WebSphere MQ, etc). People don't want disruptions in case your own kafka cluster with in-house engineers accountable for everything. So having enterprise support for product/ infra gives a sense of safety. At times rightly so. Depends on a lot of factors- risk appetite, capabilities of in-house engineers, what's at stake, and mostly psychological safety, etc.
> most of the credit for a huge company's success goes to the CEO who gets 100X the salary of a regular worker while delivering usually pretty much nothing
Well, in Confluent's case I'm not so sure that's true given that their CEO is also the company founder as well as one of the original authors of Apache Kafka.
Everything will make sense when you realize that IBM is a consulting company. They don't care about building great products. In fact building self-serve products will directly take away from their consulting revenue. They instead need to be good at marketing and selling their services. Watson was exactly that - a marketing demo that got them in the news cycle and helped them sell a giant wave of contracts under a single brand to unsuspecting CIOs of legacy non-tech companies. Every acquisition helps with this goal. Red Hat - locking companies into licenses and support contracts for the OS. HashiCorp & Confluent - locking companies into support contracts for their cloud infra.
>> Ok, so does anyone remember 'Watson'? [...] Why didn't they compete with OpenAI like Google and Anthropic are doing, with in-house tools?
> Everything will make sense when you realize that IBM is a consulting company.
This and.
The 'and' being that consulting companies, in their DNA, build solutions for their customers.
Which is a very different business than building products for all users.
Not least because the former is guided by understanding a customer's requirements, while the later is having a strong intuition (backed up by market fit) about what all users want.
I'm pretty sure there might not be a full end user capable (in the sense of design-build-iterate) product team in IBM at this point.
Mostly because I don't think they've any middle/upper management that can think that way. They've got the engineers!
The service part you are likely referring to is now Kyldryl, a separate company. IBM now focus on software and cloud. There are still services but are much less prominent.
- the pure consultancy is another company now
- the IBM portfolio of software "products" are being packaged in ways that emphasize professional services and elaborate licensing schemes (rather than turnkey software)
> they consistently deliver low quality/bottom-tier services and products
I worked with IBMers. The main priority for a lot of them is to ensure continuous employment for themselves and their buddies. They'd add unnecessary complexity to a product to stretch out the development for another couple of years. And they work at leisure pace for tech. Actual 9 to 5, many coffee breaks. They can't compete.
Well, I don't know anyone who takes a full 1 hour lunch break -- back when I was in the office, I reckon it was more like 30-45 minutes? But people at all 4 office jobs I've worked did a standard 9-5 schedule.
But yes, "out the nose" is qualified by your particular situation. For me, that might be 2-3x my normal salary, which would mean I could take breaks for a few years or retire sooner.
I worked with IBM several decades ago for a customer project, and the solution suggested by an IBM'er for backing up a NoSQL database (Lotus Notes) on a daily basis was to translate and migrate the data to a relational one (DB2), then use a DB2 tape backup system to back it up.
When I pointed out that this was a stupid way to do it, they openly told me that they just wanted to sell DB2.
Aside from having like 9 managers, 8 of whom are totally purposeless in your professional life, then yeah it’s not bad. The benefits are good.
I worked with some pretty talented and dedicated people at IBM. The “hop on a 2am call to put out a fire because they happened to check their email and they owed the person on pager duty a beer” kind of people.
That company was a red tape rats nest, but that’s management’s fault. And you get lazy people or shit departmental culture at various points in nearly every company, but painting a tens-of-thousands strong workforce with that brush is ridiculous.
I do advisory for pre-Series A startups as a last ditch effort to save them.
I do not get the unified industry delusion about "why X company has a bad product". It is usually either one of two things: comfort or ego. Everyone knows that but do not want to say it out loud.
I have seen these happen time and time again. Companies that are cash cow, do not care to do a better job. There is no incentive to do a better job. Moreover, the recurring thing is that if I did something different, I wouldn't have been this much successful in the first place.
The rest of the smart consultants walk on eggshells. They hint at stuff but never want to bite the hand that feeds them because the clients would rather fire you than be challenged.
It is not an IBM thing; it's generic business thing to some degree. I really have to call this a delusion. Good consultants submit generic reports that just tell them what they want to hear. It is not you; it is the economy. Stupid consultants that are well-meaning tell them they should be the best on competitor intel. Do you not think some stupid person did not approach IBM to do what Oracle or AWS is doing? Of course, they did, and they were fired immediately.
The best consultants are less of a consultant and more of a therapist.
After doing only four-month projects for the entire year, this year's realization was that nobody in the industry wants to do better. Everyone is in their place because of ego or a perceived sense of success. Or because of a grand conspiracy theory. IBM has a significant number of government contracts, so they are set for life because the vast majority government IT systems are pigeonholed into IBM systems. The acquisition is to tell the shareholders that we are so successful that we can literally buy companies. We do not even care to do things. Whatever the new thing is, we will buy it at some point.
I'll say this about IBM: because it's so old, it was the most diverse company I ever worked for- including age, nationality, race, sex, and any other category you can think of. Basically you had all types of people in all stages of life, not just young white workaholic tech-bros. The founders are long gone, so everyone there (including CEO) is a professional- meaning nobody has any kind of personal attachment to the company. We were all in the same boat, as it were. When your older coworker suddenly disappears due to a stroke, it puts things in perspective.
The fast-paced startup is really the hack, combining the energy of youth with the ego-mania of their founders. Ask yourself, is it healthy?
Anyway, IBM's customers tend to be other fortune 100s and governments- basically other similar organizations, and my experience was that we took care of them pretty well. The products were not pretty (no Steve Jobs-like person to enforce beauty), and rather complex due to all the enterprise requirements. But they were quite high quality, particularly the hardware.
The awe induced when standing in front of a brand new, kitted out x95 frame with all its drawers full and that special shade of IBM blue on everything is definitely something. Pull out the HMC and just think about how many decades of R&D and experience and tears went into the entire system.
> Ok, so does anyone remember 'Watson'? It was the chatgpt before chatgpt. they built it in house
I do. I remember going to a chat once where they wanted to get people on-board in using it.
It was 90 minutes of hot air.
They "showed" how Watson worked and how to implement things, and I think every single person in the room knew they were full of it. Imagine we were all engineers and there were no questions at the end.
Comparing Watson to LLMs is like comparing a rock to an AIM-9 Sidewinder.
Watson was nothing like ChatGPT. The first iteration was a system specifically built to play Jeopardy. It did some neat stuff with NLP and information retrieval, but it was all still last generation AI/ML technology. It then evolved into a brand that IBM used to sell its consulting services. The product itself was a massive failure because it had no real applications and was too weak as a general purpose chat bot.
>Why do they keep doing the same thing again and again? How are they generating actual revenue this way?
IBM has a ton of Enterprise software, backed by a bunch of consultants hiding in boring businesses/governments.
They also do a ton of outsourcing work where they will be big enterprise IT support desk and various other functions. In fact, that side has gotten so big, IBM now has more employees in India in then any other country.
Your fascination seems hinged on the fact that IBM has "lots of talent to make ML/LLMs work" which judging by what they've put out so far and talk publicly about, is very far from the truth. Anyone who has a clue seems to (rightly) have left IBM decades ago, and left are business people who think "Managed to increase margin by 0.1%" is something to celebrate.
It’s a shame because people forget how good IBM research was back in the day. I do wonder if they still have great people in those r&d labs, or if they all left.
There are good people in IBM. But they don't have the resources behind them anymore. Look at the market cap of ms, Amazon. Google, meta et al, compared to IBM.
To be a bit more candid, they have lots of employees outside of the US (particularly in India). and both in the US and elsewhere, people need to eat. They may not have the talent to innovate new tech like OpenAI and others, or do cutting-edge R&D, but they certainly have the talent to take LLM breakthroughs and adapt. They could have competed with many of the B-Tier LLM services out there with the right leadership.
> but they certainly have the talent to take LLM breakthroughs and adapt
I'll believe that when I see it. They had a decade headstart with all of this, and yeah, could have been at the forefront. But they're not, and because of the organization itself, they're unlikely to have a shot at even getting close to there. Seems they know this themselves too, as they're targeting the lower end of the market now with their Granite models, rather than shooting for the stars and missing, like they've done countless of times before.
> Ok, so does anyone remember 'Watson'? It was the chatgpt before chatgpt. they built it in house. Why didn't they compete with OpenAI like Google and Anthropic are doing, with in-house tools?
Leadership in IBM also thought that Watson was like what what OAI/Anthropic/Google are doing now. It wasn't. Watson was essentially a ML pipeline over-optimized on Jeopardy, which is why it failed in literally every other domain.
Sure, but they were doing that stuff. They had ML people, infrastructure, marketing, branding,etc... already. Their product sucked, but they could have copy-catted OpenAI in 2022+ like everyone else.
I don't think that would have gotten them much of anywhere. They already spent a decade trying to find markets for Watson to fit and generally failing at it. The problem with Watson wasn't technology, it was that it had no direction.
They gave up on watson about 18 months before llm's popped up, and they have simply just not got enough cash on hand to compete. While the big boys grew fantastically bigger over the past 15 years as cloud happened ibm fumbled time after time and shrank ever smaller, and is now desperately hoping it can stay relevant. but in the end they just haven't got the resources to compete on that stage anymore.
The recent interview with Arvind had the “grapes are too green, anyway” energy. They missed the train because they were licking their Watson wounds. Then sorta regretted it but it’s too late.
Same thing happened with their cloud offering. They laughed at AWS, then tried to catch up, then missed and pivoted to “hybrid” (cloud and local).
To add to that i think their R&D labs along with HPE were one of the few to innovate on the memristor and actually build some fascinating concept machines.If i rememeber HPE's was 'The Machine'.
Athough i think they just di/dont know how to adapt these to market that isnt a enterprise behemoth , rather than develop/price it so more devs can take a hold and experiment.
HPE's advanced technology constructed "The Machine" from Plexiglas, not known for its high switching performance. It was a total scam of moron management by their revenant R&D lab management. I saw this close up.
There are entire niches of us that make a living (not at IBM) making certain IBM products actually do what they're supposed to. From my vantage point I see essentially zero maintenance going on with their products. I sincerely don't understand the market (why do people keep paying hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars for non-existent support?) - but whatever.
Yes it really was quite good despite all the hate it seems to get in internet comments. I used it for several years. The feature set, particularly config specs and dynamic views, was brilliant. The product was pretty mature and complete 25 years ago. I agree that administration was complicated and performance could be slow if misconfigured. We configured right, it was very intuitive and pleasant to use. IBM has effectively killed it by continuing to charge an excessive premium while adding nothing significant since they bought Rational (for Clearcase, DOORS, Apex etc.)
I’m pretty convinced there is a bell curve of “understanding what IBM does” where idiots and geniuses both have absolutely no idea.
It really is probably that strangest company in tech which you think could be mysterious and intriguing. But no one cares. It’s like no one wants to look behind the boring suit and see wtf. From my low point on that bell curve I can’t see how they are even solvent.
Just the set the record straight on how and why these acquisitions go at IBM. This is a first hand account working at and with IBM and competitors and being in the room as tech-guy accessory to murder.
IBM lives off huge multi-year contract deals with their customers, each are multi-multi-million dollars worth. IBM has many of these contracts, maybe ~2000 of them around the planet, including your own government wherever it is that you live. This is ALL that matters to IBM. ALL. That. Matters.
These huge contracts get renegotiated at every X years. IBM renewal salespeople are tough and rough, in particular the ones on the renewal teams, and they spend every minute of every hour in between renewals grooming the decision makers, sponsors, champions and stakeholders (and their families) within these big corporations. Every time you see an IBM logo at a sports event (and there are many IBM-sponsored events), that's not IBM marketing to you the ad-viewer. They are there for grooming their stakeholders, who fight hard to be in the best IBM sponsored-seats at those venues, and in the glamorous pre and after party, celebs included. IBM also sponsors other stuff, even special programs at universities. Who go to these universities? Oh, you bet, the stakeholder's kids, who get the IBM-treatment and IBM-scholarship at those places.
But the grooming is not enough. The renewal is not usually at risk - who has the balls to uninstall IBM out of a large corp? What is at risk is IBM's growth, which is fueled by price increases at every renewal point not the sale of new software or new clients - there are no new clients for IBM anywhere anymore! These price increases need to happen, not just because of inflation but because of the stock price and bonuses that keep the renewal army and management going strong, since this is a who-knows-who business. To justify the price increase internally at those huge client corps (not to the stakeholder but to their bosses, boards, users, etc) IBM needs to throw a bone into these negotiations. The bone is whatever acquisition you see they make: Red Hat, Hashicorp... Or developments like Watson. Or whatever. They are only interested in acquiring products or entering markets that can be thrown at those renewal negotiations, with very few exceptions. Why Confluent? Well, because they probably did their research and decided that existing Confluent licenses can be applied to one (yeah, one) or many renewal contracts as growth fuel for at least 1-to-N iterations of renewals.
Renewal contracts correspond anywhere from 60% to 95% of IBM's revenue, depending on how you account for the the consulting arm and "new" (software/hw sales/subscriptions). I particularly have not seen lots of companies hiring IBM consultants "just because we love IBM consultants and their rates", so consulting at a site is always tied to the renewal somehow, even if billed separately or not billed at all. Same for new sw sales, if a company wants something IBM has on their catalog from their own whim and will, then that will just probably be packed into the next renewal because that's stakeholder leverage for justifying the renewal's increase base rate. Remember, a lot of IBM's mainframes are not even sold, they are just rentals.
Most IBM investment into research programs, new tech (quantum computing!) etc are there just to help the renewals and secure a new Govt deal here and there. How? Well, maybe the increase in the renewal for the, ie, State of Illinois contract gets a bone thrown in for a new "Quantum Research Center (by IBM)" at some U of I campus or tech park that the now visionary Governor will happily cut the ribbon, photo op and do the speech. Oh wait! I swear I made this up as an example, but this one is actually true, lol:
having worked in a government agency that ditched IBM, let me offer a view of what that looks like from the customer side:
IBM bought a company whose product we'd been using for a while, and had a perpetual license for. A few years after the purchase, IBM tried to slip a clause into a support renewal that said we were "voluntarily" agreeing to revoke the perpetual license and move to a yearly per-seat license. Note: this was in a contract with the government, for support, not for the product itself. They then tried to come after us for seat licenses costs. Our lawyers ripped them apart, as you can't add clauses about licensing for software to a services contract, and we immediately tore out the product and never paid IBM another dime.
I tell this story not to be all "cool story, bro", but to point out that IBM does focus on renewal growth, but they're not geniuses...they're just greedy assholes who sometimes push for growth in really stupid ways.
They have some real money printers that most probably haven't heard of. IBM Maximo for example dominates some industries the way SAP and Salesforce does.
Confluent was trading at less than 50% of its IPO price when IBM made the offer. The stock and the company has been going sideways for several years now, keeps growing revenues but loses even more as most of it is in Sales and Marketing. In which world is this seen as some sort of extraordinary company that will get sabotaged by IBM. Seems Confluent management knows the writing on the wall, IBM will clean up (fire a bunch of sales and management guys) and make this a workable business. It will seem brutal for some Confluent guys but that's because their business is broken; and only someone from outside can come in and fix it as the current senior management cannot.
IBM has been around for over a hundred years, maybe they know a thing or two about running a software business :-)
I joined IBM over 40 years ago, like my pappy before me.
My main takeaway from IBM's longevity is just how astonishingly long big companys' death rattles can be, not how great IBM are at running software businesses.
No. They are a multi-generational institution at this point and they are constantly evolving. If you work there it definitely FEELS like they are dying because the thing you spent the last 10 years of your career on is going away and was once heralded as the "next big thing." That said, IBM fascinated me when I was acquired by them because it is like a living organism. Hard to kill, fully enmeshed in both the business and political fabric of things and so ultimately able to sustain market shifts.
That's an interesting and enlightening way to look at it.
For me it was the death of IBM's preeminence in IT. When I started there a job at IBM was prestigious,a job for life. More than once I was told that we had a lengthy backlog of inventions and technological wonders that could be wheeled out of the plant if competitors ever nipped too closely at IBM's heels.
At that time IBM had never made a single person redundant - anywhere in the world. The company had an incredible sophisticated internal HR platform that did elaborate succession planning and considered training and promotion as major workforce factors - there was little need to think much about recruitment because jobs for life. IBM could win any deal, maybe needing only to discount a little if things were very competitive.
It's impossible to imagine now what a lofty position the company held. It's not unfair to say that, if not dead, the IBM of old is no longer with us.
To be fair, the whole job market has changed. Layoffs and the death of "a job for life" is not unique to IBM.
I think the pace of progress and innovation has, for better or worse, meant that companies can no longer count on successfully evolving only from the inside through re-training and promotions over the average employee's entire career arc (let's say 30 years).
The reality is that too many people who seek out jobs in huge companies like IBM are not looking to constantly re-invent themselves and learn new things and keep pushing themselves into new areas every 5-10 years (or less), which is table stakes now for tech companies that want to stay relevant.
Honestly, I think that's people reacting to the market more than it's the market reacting to people.
If your average zoomer had the ability to get a job for life that paid comparably well by a company that would look after them, I don't think loyalty would be an issue.
The problem is today, sticking with a company typically means below market reward, which is particularly acute given the ongoing cost of living crises affecting the west.
It is absolutely a different company. I had the opportunity to intern there twice in the late 70's and then was acquired by them in 2015, the IBM of 1978 and the IBM of 2015 were very different businesses. Having "grown up" so to speak in the Bay Area tech company ecosystem where companies usually died when their founding team stopped caring, IBM was a company that had decided, as an institution, to encapsulate what it took to survive in the company's DNA. I had a lot of great discussions (still do!) with our integration executive (that is the person who is responsible for integrating the acquisition with the larger company) about IBM's practice in terms of change.
IBM is a consulting business, not a software business. Their software sucks, and every actual software engineer knows it. IBM has a business selling to big, old, backwards enterprise businesses who wouldn't know good software from literal pieces of faeces.
Investopedia says[0] they make 60% of their profit from "Software" but how much of that is "providing cloud solutions" and similar software-adjacent consulting exercises?
To me it makes sense when it comes to the stock. It's not like someone goes to Robinhood or whatever and goes... Hey you know what's underrated? Kafka! Calls on Confluent!
Genuine question: how did the IBM acquisitions of Red Hat and HashiCorp turn out?
For Red Hat, there's no longer an official "public" distribution of RHEL, but apart from that they seemingly have been left alone and able to continue to develop their own products. But that's only my POV as a user of OSS Red Hat products at home and of RHEL and OpenShift at work.
We moved off HashiCorp's Terraform Cloud when they tried to hike the price 100x on us, although that was technically pre-acquisition I think (it was their move to resource-based pricing). In talking with our account manager, they basically said they only really cared about enterprise accounts, and that migrating away would probably make sense for us.
HashiCorp also changed their licenses to non-open-source licenses, but again I think this was technically pre-acquisition (I think as they were gearing up to be a more attractive target for an exit).
In addition to this, I’ve noticed that OpenTofu is gaining much more interesting features and are actually acting upon long-requested functionality that HashiCorp has refused to implement (example: provider for_each in 1.9.0)
Yeah I just implemented a new stack and noticed OpenTofu now supports client side encryption for the state files in with keys stored in Azure KeyVault (in the latest 1.11 release). AWS and GCP had been supported for a while.
Client side state encryption was one of the things which HashiCorp always gatekeeped for HashiCorp Cloud and never implemented in the Open Souce / Sourece Available versions.
Yes. They were burning the cash they raised from IPO as weren't profitable and no real path to profitability. Needed to find a buyer to take private as the other option - raise debt or print shares - wasn't going to happen as the share price had massively tanked and wasn't going to go up any time soon.
Hopefully mitchellh will write a book about Hashicorp some time. Would be fascinating to read the inside take.
Former-Hashi employee here: there's a clear prioritization of enterprise products. So much so that I would not be surprised if they stopped supporting the Open Source projects entirely. That would be a big boost for the forks.
Red Hat has far more autonomy. We are not structured the same.
On the HR side — many good people are leaving; new hires have to be on-site for 3 days and located in 4 "strategic" locations in the US.
The argument has been made that the real value of RH lies in the people working there. And if IBM were to interfere too heavy-handedly, those people would just leave, and RH would become basically worthless.
Maybe that's how it should work, but it's not how it actually works.
The culture makes the company. Everyone on the lower rungs of the org chart knows this, because it's what they live and breathe every day. A positive, supportive workplace culture with clear goals and relative autonomy is a thing of beauty. You routinely find people doing more work than they really have to because they believe in the mission, or their peers, or the work is just fun. People join the company (and stay) because they WANT to not because they have to.
Past a certain company size, upper management NEVER sees this. They are always looking outward: strategy, customers, marketing, competition. Never in. They've been trained to give great motivational speeches that instill a sense of company pride and motivation for about 30 seconds. After that, employee morale is HR's job.
I have worked in a company that got acquired while it was profitable. The culture change was slow but dramatic. We went from a fun, dynamic culture with lots of teamwork and supportive management, to one step or two above Office Space. As far as the acquiring company was concerned, everything we were doing didn't matter, even if it worked. We had to conform to their systems and processes, or find new jobs. Most of us eventually did the latter.
Somehow Red Hat seems to be a notable exception. Although IBM owns Red Hat, they seem to have mostly left it alone instead of absorbing it. The name "IBM" doesn't even appear on redhat.com. Because I'm an outsider, I can't say whether IBM meddled in Red Hat's HR or management, but I would guess not.
There have been annual layoffs at RedHat since 2023. This year they just laid off more. The layoffs this year are expected to be "a low single digit percentage of our global workforce." Which will likely include hundreds of folks at Red Hat.
There haven't been layoffs at Red Hat after 2023, whereas according to your statement there should have been two more rounds. The layoffs from your articles are at IBM, and did not affect Red Hat.
It seems like most users got tired of the unknowns with CentOS and went to Alma/Rocky. Doesn't help that most third party software vendors also didn't bother to support it.
The Gnome desktop that shipped with Solaris over two decades ago is just as useful, possibly more useful, as the tablet-oriented hamburger menu UI of today.
I do. It's great that the UI is stagnated, but unfortunately the UX is too. Things like bluetooth not being integrated with the DE, and various details that we take for granted not working correctly
GTK is still alive. It seems like Cosmic desktop with GTK apps will be a reasonable path forward. Of course there's KDE and QT, but I mean as an alternative to those.
One thing that's happened is that OpenShift has an IBM stamp of approval, which means it is now available in more organisations, that would otherwise have clung to more obscure mainframes and worse clown platforms.
From my perspective, as someone who is deeply suspicious of IBM in general, that's a plus.
Exactly. An agent may be acting on the contents of individual events, but also spotting trends and patterns in events, and intervening where needed/instructed.
It's depressing how IBM always uses the same language with every single acquisition. They don't care about the actual tech, only the patents and the ability to resell it.
I led the engineering team of a large adtech company (TripleLift - order of hundreds of billions of events/day) and we evolved from self hosting Kafka, to paying a vendor (Instacluster), to migrating to RedPanda.
RedPanda was a huge win for us. Confluent never made sense to us since we were always so cost conscious but the complexity/risk of managing a critical part of our infra was always something I worried about. RedPanda was able to handle both for us - cheaper than Kafka hosting vendors with significantly better performance. We were pretty early customers but was a huge win for us.
Same, small martech company. RedPanda works and the pricing allows actually using the service, plus the “source available” isn’t that limiting if you prefer to run your own stuff. Definitely glad to be off kafka prior to this news!
Last i talked to RedPanda sales while working at a big name client they would not offer us anything below $100k per year for enterprise support etc (us running on our kubernetes). Looks like they added some "serverless" pricing thing now, but at the time Azure Eventhub (kakfa client compatible) was cheapest enterprisy option if I remember correctly.
We switched to Redpanda's BYOC product because we couldn't use Confluent Cloud (contractual reasons) and BYOC was a third the price of Confluent for Kubernetes while also being a managed service.
I've been pretty happy with RP performance/cost/functionality wise. It isn't Kafka though, it's a proprietary C++ rewrite that aims for 100% compatibility. This hasn't been an issue in the 2+ years since we migrated prod, but YMMV.
IBM have an absolutely stellar record of blowing acquisitions. The highly motivated newly acquired team will be in honeymoon phase for 3 months, and then it slowly dawns on them that they’ve joined an unbelievably rigid organization where things like customer satisfaction and great products don’t matter at all. Then they’ll be in shock and disbelief at the mind boggling Byzantine rules and internal systems they have to use, whose sole purpose is to make sure nobody does anything. Finally, the core IBM sales force will start to make demands on them and will short to ground any vestiges of energy, time, opportunity and motivation they might have left. The good team members will leave and join a former business partner, or decide to spend more time with the family. They’ll meet often at the beginning to relive the glory days of pre-acquisition and recount times where they went went above and beyond for that important early customer. But then these meetings will become fewer and fewer. Finally they’ll find a way of massaging their resumes to cast the last years as being “at the heart of AI infrastructure”.
Yeah, they acquired the company I worked at and left us alone for a year or two. Each year would get worse though, and each year we swapped nearly all bureaucratic things around. Always a different way to do performance reviews goals, etc.
A lot of the successful projects at the original company are now dead.
It's also weird being in IBM, because if your "contract" ends they put you on the bench. Then you basically have to job hunt within IBM, and if you can't find anything within a month or so you are out. It's super weird.
"It's also weird being in IBM, because if your "contract" ends they put you on the bench. Then you basically have to job hunt within IBM, and if you can't find anything within a month or so you are out. It's super weird."
This is standard operating procedure at most consulting/professional services firms.
Yes, the bench sounds great but it is incredibly nerve-wracking and I never liked that aspect of consulting at all. Better to just go to zero pay and be a free agent and if the company finds you another gig, great, but no promises either way.
I retired a couple of years ago at 54 and now spend my days feeding horses, mucking stalls and spreading the resulting manure (a task consulting prepared me for), but for about 24 of my 30 year career prior to retiring I worked for consulting companies and was lucky enough to never sit on the bench.
Sounds similar to university applied research arms too.
GTRI locally hires a lot of non-students to work in its various labs. Its labs then pitch ideas to private companies and the DoD. Sometimes they're solicited directly if the lab is well-known and has a track record of delivering good research-oriented results. They research and build prototypes around various capabilities: robotics, avionics, even classified stuff.
They're always pitching, because contracts end or fall through, and that's the source of everyone's payroll. The labs can even be competitive with one another, and the individual researchers might spend time split between labs.
I don’t know how many contracts IBM deals with, but the concept of a bench is very common in government contracting. It helps retain talent in an environment that’s more volatile than a typical office. Good for the company to avoid brain drain and hiring overhead, good for the employee because it’s a built-in safety net. Much better than your contract ending and immediately being out of a job, especially in today’s market
I don't think they're objecting to the idea of a bench as an ultimate fallback; I think they're objecting to the idea that there isn't, during such "internal layoffs", a default automatic reassignment of all headcount to other teams. In such cases, you would only land on the bench if you refuse the automatic reassignment.
Longer Bench allowed only for consultant with security clearance as those are such a hard thing to come by. General govt work, they just let you go like in commercial sector.
Those are the positives. The downside is that the sales team presents you with really lousy contract opportunities and you are pressured to accept one knowing it is a crap assignment that isn't helping your career growth. And you can be stuck on one of those for years!
Surely by now everyone, including non-developers and non-software people, know exactly what IBM is, and you don't sell to IBM/join IBM without knowing exactly what's about to happen. No one joins IBM today and thinks there will be a huge focus on customer satisfaction or focus on great product design, it's all about squeezing maximum profit out of products until you need to discontinue them because you chased away all of the customers.
Not wrong but the image that people are painting in the comments is getting close to a caricature now.
The stuff IBM is doing on Quantum Computing is serious cutting-edge science and engineering for instance. The R&D they are doing on semiconductors on their 2nm and sub-2nm processes is also impressive and hardcore tech. They are doing a bunch of progress on post-quantum cryptography and homomorphic encryption. They've fallen behind now, but they were also quite strong on pre-LLM NLP for a couple of decades, it was not all fluff.
Yes they have an awful enterprise culture and they are not focused on building excellent products. But what they offer fits the needs of many organizations, and a lot of the things they are doing on R&D are no joke.
IBM shouldn't be thought of as a singular company. It is a conglomerate that does widely distinct things. Some enterprise boring profit squeezing, some shady scam "IBM blockchain on Z OS prevents viruses," some research/patent efforts elsewhere.
That said the GP is spot on for this sort of acquisition we know what will happen and has nothing to do with 2nm research division.
> IBM shouldn't be thought of as a singular company. It is a conglomerate that does widely distinct things.
Agreed, like others, small startup I was with, we were acquired years ago and first advice from IBMers who'd been acquired was that IBM is like 1000 smaller companies.
> IBM shouldn't be thought of as a singular company. It is a conglomerate that does widely distinct things.
This. Employees in the various sub-companies and divisions usually don't even know who most of the executive leadership is outside their little world. There is no cohesive "IBM" anymore, and I don't think there has been for a very long time.
Doing research? Sure... Maybe. But it doesn't mean they are going to get anywhere to mass production... What was their last huge innovation? On top of that I won't give that much credit for what they do or say they do. Remember how much they lied about many of their "innovations" like IBM Watson?
People do not have anything to do with IBM Research. As long as IBM Consulting exists, your name will be seen as tarnished and not be taken seriously by most technology workers.
I worked for a small company acquired by IBM in 2011. We had a good 5-6 year run where our product sales went up (largely because so many IBM people were selling it) and we were largely left alone. Once things slowed down a bit the IBM rot set in quick though. These days I think all that's left is a skeleton crew maintaining the obligatory long term contracts around the main product, every other part of the original company has been picked clean.
You can measure it by how many management steps you, as an employee of the recently acquired company are from the CEO in the hierarchy. As time goes on, this number tends to increase. It used to be easy to see this in Lotus Sametime or something that had some form of employee directory.
That's awesome. Before ~2007 they allowed you to use open-source Pidgin to connect to the Domino servers. A friend of mine and I used it to make a bot: if you sametimed me, you got Zork.
It reminds me of another IBM IT rule: they wanted your chat history (and email) older than two years to be all deleted for legal liability reasons. It was important to save your sametime chat history (an XML file) and export your email periodically if you wanted to keep this stuff.
This was actually better than Slack in one way- you could grep the files for things, and not have to rely on search within the tool.
Hint: by all means possible, make sure you are not the owner of (or manager of the person who owns) any assets beyond your personal laptop. If, for example, you end up being the owner of all the development and test servers of the original company, then it will become your responsibility to ensure that each OS (of each LPAR of each VM) is security compliant, is running the end-point asset manager, and has up to date OS patches, that the DASD is encrypted, and you must periodically show physical proof that the asset still exists and indicate where it's located- photos of assets tags or whatever. It will be your responsibility to dispose of the asset (with all associated paperwork) at the end of its life.
It helps if such machines are not actually on the 9. network, or are behind an internal firewall (then they don't care about the security compliance as much).
Probably, but now it's going to be formalized and will entail a lot of paperwork (manual entry on many very badly written JAVA-based CRUD applications). Sure, these things are all good ideas, but trust me, they have all been overthought. Do you want this to be your job?
I still "own" (i.e. I'm the sole user with a root access and can install OS of my choosing) an old machine from the days before everything moved to a cloud and guess no one from IT has got to decommission it yet. I'm have no idea where it is located (besides knowing which office it is assigned to), never saw it, no way in hell am going to attach any tags and waste my time to install enterprise spyware on it or manually encrypt it's data. Do engineers do that for development servers on your job? If yes, name and shame!
I'm with a company that was acquired by IBM ~2.5 years ago. The internal systems are definitely rough, but for the most part it's business as usual.
I've heard chatter from our engineering leadership that IBM is trying to push some silly initiatives, but we've been able to prioritize the right work so far.
I also get more equity (one time award + employee stock purchase plan) than I did previously, and with how IBM stock has been performing lately this has been a net positive for me.
FWIW I have heard that IBM used to force their management style on acquisitions in years past, so perhaps this is a fairly recent shift towards a less hands-on approach.
> FWIW I have heard that IBM used to force their management style on acquisitions in years past
Definitely wasn't like that for Red Hat. We had a CFO with an IBM past which was a really nice guy and never ever felt like he was parachutes from IBM.
Now after 6 years legal, HR and finance will move to IBM starting next January; but my perspective from engineering is that after the acquisition it's been and remains business as usual.
Haven't heard a damn thing about "RedHat" in years, though. It's dead as far as Linux distros go. I'm sure it's used in the IBM-o-sphere, but I'm just not around that at all.
Yep, this is a classic acquisition story. You go from a hungry company out there to fight to succeed and join a big corp where most projects are just endless series of meetings people have about what they want to do without any real timeline or immediate plan to start.
The worst is when your sales team (and all of its super valuable institutional knowledge of your specific market) are cut, and all your management is laid off so that the new corp's managers (who have embedded themselves into the corporate bureaucracy like a trichinosis worm) can treat all your teams as free headcount.
Soon, your company, which was acquired for growth, can't do anything and turns into an albatross around the new corp's neck. So the layoffs begin.
> ...and internal systems they have to use, whose sole purpose is to make sure nobody does anything
I once had to use Lotus Notes after the company I was at was acquired by the now defunct Computer Sciences Corporation. I decided I would never, ever work for another company that used Lotus Notes.
In a lot of ways Notes was ahead of its time. You could easily have encrypted replicated databases with offline work, which was very handy for traveling users back before high bandwidth connections were widely available, and you could build quite complex apps on top of those databases.
I saw at least one large company that migrated from Notes to exchange and they got the email/calendaring bit done quite easily and were still running notes servers for line of business applications years later.
Notes was pretty decent as a groupware/ nosql platform. Lotus script wasn’t great. I might be biased because my first CS job was to write applications with it.
It felt like they basically tacked on the email functionality to to Notes to sell it, but it always seemed kinda ok to me.
In defense of Byzantines. Their rules and amazing diplomatic prowess is what let them be an empire for so long. The negative connotations to Byzantine comes from the negative perception the west had of them. Byzantines were very practical in regards to who they allied with.
The claims about extreme complexity of the Late Roman/Byzantine state came into the popular imagination by Enlightenment and other Western thinkers who were deeply biased against the late Romans due to a long history of cultural conflict. The OP is completely correct here, the reddit comment is an extremely incomplete story. It notes that the Roman state was more complex than other Medieval states (correct), but to say that it was "too" complex is a culturally based judgment, not a fact. The origin of the negative cultural judgment about that complexity waen't coming from the Romans, they were coming from the Franks, Venetians, and later Western Europeans who in large part were repeating the old prejudices going back to the schism, but also justifying their own conquest and abuses of of the Roman people.
I'm sure the children who watched their parents get murdered before they themselves were taken into slavery during the fall of Constantinople appreciated those rules and the alliances they supported.
I hope Hashicorp survives. A few higher ups I’ve talked to there made it seem like IBM wants to learn from them, not force their old ways onto Hashicorp. We’ll see. That one is still pretty new.
HCP wasn't any prize when they got bought, though, right? HashiCorp Cloud was more like a fog in terms of growth. A bunch of products got lost a long the way (Boundary? Waypoint?) HCP lost 50% of its IPO value by the time it was bought. Yes, I know IPO's are high and always go down, but it went from around a $14bn valuation to being bought for something like $6.5bn.
Judging from what my contacts say, I would not hold my breath. HCP is going to get smashed by bureaucracy and bigcorp bs just like all other IBM acquisitions. All you have to do to verify this is look at linkedin and track the departures of the the acquired staff.
And even if there is a 20% of executives actually believe in "We should learn from HashiCorp", usually not even that is enough to counter-act the default mode of operation which is squeezing customers. GLHF to remaining HashiCorp believers, but personally I'd try to find alternatives for the software you use from them if you haven't already.
Executives will say anything to boost the next quarter results. After that they get rebooted and start again, and nothing they said before counts for anything.
Usually the internal stakeholder that made the case to acquire the business leaves/gets promoted and new managers come in and start the assimilation process.
I've heard IBM is really just an external government agency. If you look at it through the lens of being acquired by a government bureaucracy, then your explanation makes perfect sense. IBM is too entrenched to fail and too poorly run to be acquired.
> They’ll meet often at the beginning to relive the glory days of pre-acquisition and recount times where they went went above and beyond for that important early customer.
Pretty bleak, and describes my experience to a T (although involving other companies). Has there ever been an example where a company has been acquired and culture/morale/conditions have actually improved rather than dissolved?
I wouldn't describe it as improved necessarily, but successfully integrated. This happened many times - youtube by google for example. Facebook acquisitions are pretty successful too (not looking if it was good for humanity, just from business perspective).
Some companies like Amazon buy companies and let them run almost independently - IMDB for example, Zappos, Twitch, Whole Foods, Zoox, Audible.
The Apple acquisition of NeXT has (only half-jokingly) been described as NeXT buying Apple with Apple's money. That's obviously an exceptionally rare case.
I think I’ve seen people on here describe Google’s acquisition of DoubleClick in similar terms—- or at least in the sense that DC’s culture infected & somewhat replaced Google culture. I may be misremembering though.
That's a very cynical take. Unfortunately likely correct.
It's a fact that a publicly traded company is beholden to Wall Street and any time such a company would use their earnings for R&D the P/E and margins go down (i.e. spending more money to earn the same) and this is considered a negative signal at Wall Street and the company gets punished in the market.
So the only way a company can spend their earnings is to pay dividends or buy assets such as other companies, which then must be squeezed for margins.
IBM isn’t really a tech company anymore. More of a legal trolling company that cosplays as tech.
They seem to primarily benefit from kickbacks in the form of both leasing and technical contracts for things like opening offices in a location for tax benefits or to promote local economy.
Then they see how far they can cut back their end of the contract after the first few months (e.g. Maybe we agreed to have 500 employees in an office, but since nobody is allowed in, we think we can get away with 100 employees.) Then this turns into trolling about how the contract never defines what in office means so can we offshore… Too much undefined confusion, so I guess we get to break the contract but keep what the mayor paid us… Then they just shut down the office and move on to the next location.
It seems like the local government must be in on these schemes for leasing. Otherwise this wouldn’t be going on for decades as it has been.
The other part of business, technical contracts, is similar except instead of leasing it’s providing some sort of infrastructure coverage for something big. It starts off with good faith fulfilling the contract. Then a few months later it’s like well we have a US military contract that demands US employees but US employees are too expensive. What if we offshore but all the traffic is technically going through a single US employee’s computer which is what the contract technically demands.
Then it turns into well we have offshore people working on this anyway, why not just give them direct access and we’ll have a US person overseeing them. Lay everyone else off.
Then they see how long they can get away with this until someone gets mad. Then they take one step back to see how close to the technical contract they can get while threatening to abandon the whole thing at the same time.
Along with this sort of atmosphere and attitude for the law, it seems we see them constantly doing everything possible to constantly fire old people or anyone else that has legally protected status. So you’ll get statistical analytics on ways to fire protected people based around the constant performance reviews with statistics being used to see how close groups of protected people can be removed without statistically breaking the law. Whatever that algorithm is.
That plays into just straight up cutting people, but it also goes into a lot of other subsystems of skirting the law, like if old people can’t relocate as easily then hopping offices and forcing people to relocate 5000 miles is a way they can be eliminated. Part of this might be moving people onto new teams and then saying that team has to be in office for some made up reason, and then firing them for not relocating or using some made up metric like badging timestamps to get them, or some other technicality like leaving for lunch 5 minutes early despite being a salaried employee which is reported as hourly because of tax trolling.
I don’t know how IBM still exists because from my perspective it’s pretty clear they’re breaking or at best on razor thin gray line on ice on just about every possible law you could break.
I worked for IBM Cloud about 6+ years ago. While there, we had to connect to a Softlayer VPN to get into our Jira instance. My VPN account and Jira account never got provisioned so I couldn't connect nor see the Jira board. My team-mates couldn't even assign a ticket to me b/c of this. They would just put my initial's in the ticket summary and send me a slack of the details.
It was right before I left that we got our own Jira instance. This was all around the time of the Red Hat acquisition. I remember the announcement b/c we used SuSE for everything IIRC.
I work for a company that has so much bureaucracy and silos that teams maintain wiki pages with links and routing on how to create tickets for specific tasks and wether there is a specific mandatory information needed in order to not have your ticket just closed as incomplete without an explanation.
Sometimes a team unilaterally decide to change the process, info is sent to a random number of mailbox/managers who may fail to pass the info. Some entire teams just put themselves in away status 24/7 and do not respond to direct messages.
So yes I can believe his story. Sometimes in these kind of companies you just don't know who and how to ask for something and you just hope someone knows someone who might know.
What's the largest company you've worked for? A lot of big, older companies, are just so messed up that its just not worth it. How do you do this? Well you have to find the specific form, or specific person who does the thing, who is that? no one knows. So that provisioning of a vpn and getting in jira might literally be like a month of work.
I've worked for S&P Global, so pretty large. If you don't have an account that you need, then you need to be tenacious, which of course is super annoying. If you don't have an account on a system you should, it's 100% on you after a while.
On consulting engagements, 0% of the time are Jira and git provisioned correctly for an outside consultant. I used to be appalled at being paid for two or three days of waiting for the IT guy to fix this. Now I use the time to find cleaning supplies and deep clean my cubicle and chair. People do look at me funny, but I feel better not just sitting there reading.
I did, multiple times. I was a contractor. I was the only one on my team of contractors whose account was screwed up. There seemed to be no priority to do anything there. One of many many reasons I left when I could.
I imagine that's done via JIRA tcket/IT before onboarding.
So if they somehow can get past initial device deployment/user account logon, and get other resources IE; slack....well that speaks to how difficult/pointless it would be to get proper VPN/Jira access.
I had a similar thing happen to me with a huge company as a contractor. I couldn't work for 3 weeks due to a combination of login issues and permissions settings. Couldn't file a ticket and no one was really sure who to call/ask. Finally a director caught wind of it and knew who to talk to.
Seems like a great day for Pulsar / StreamNative and Redpanda who are going to get a lot of new customers in the coming years.
When looking for alternatives to Kafka these are the most promising options I found, not counting RabbitMQ which needs no introduction.
Pulsar seems to be 'kafka done better'. The version of Kafka that Confluent used internally (Kora) seems closer to Pular as well. Pulsar has a lot of features that Kafka doesn't have, like per-message acknowledgement, similar to RabbitMQ. And it has protocol support for RabbitMQ and Kafka, so can be a drop-in replacement.
Redpanda seems like a great re-implementation of Kafka.
I'm hoping this boosts Pulsar's status and helps get some traction for StreamNative. It seems like the best technical solution for events and messaging. It just needs a bit more market adoption to make an easier choice for enterprise, in my opinion. This might be that moment.
It's like how lots of species evolve into crabs, or crab like things. Instead of dying out evolutionarily, failed giants like IBM evolve into Computer Associates.
Confluent had great stuff but their prices were crazy. When we got a quote from them, it was 20x more than what we could run on our own. We got quoted something like ~500k/year and my math on running it on AWS came around 25k for the same sized cluster via Strimzi operator on dedicated K8s nodes. We could hire a dedicated 3 person team to manage the cluster for the same price lol.
Now AWS is eating Confluent's lunch with it's managed Kafka. AWS MSK is still a little rough like all AWS services but it's still cheaper and a no-brainer if you are already on AWS.
I have similar stories, I showed the Confluent consultants a projection of their Kafka quote vs Kinesis and it was like 10x, even they were confused. The ingress/egress costs are insane. I think they just do very deep discounts to certain customers. The product is good but if you pay full ticket it probably doesn't make sense.
pull vs push. Plus if you start storing the last timestamp so you only select the delta and if you start sharding your db and dealing with complexities of having different time on different tables/replication issues it quickly becomes evident that Kafka is better in this regard.
But yeah, for a lot of implementations you don't need streaming. But for pull based apps you design your architecture differently, some things are a lot easier than it is with DB, some things are harder.
A Kafka consumer does a lot of work coordinating distributed clients in a group, managing the current offset, balancing the readers across partitions, etc which is native broker functionality. Saying you can replace it all with a simple JDBC client or something isn't true (if you need that stuff!)
What you're doing is fine for a homelab, or learning. But barring any very specific reason other than just not liking Kafka, its bad. The second that pattern needs to be fanned out to support even 50+ producers/consumers, the overhead and complexity needed to manage already-solved problems becomes a very bad design choice.
Kafka already solves this problem and gives me message durability, near infinite scale out, sharding, delivery guarantees, etc out of the box. I do not care to develop, reshard databases or production-alize this myself.
Some people don't and won't need 50+ producers/consumers for a long while, if ever. Rewriting the code at that point may be less costly than operating Kafka in the interim. Kafka is also has a higher potential for failure than sqlite.
Ofc, and not everybody needs or cares for all the features Kafka has. Then use another known and tested messaging system. Use NATS or ZMQ. Or any cloud native pubsub system
My main point is, I have zero interest in creating novel solutions to a solved problem. It just artificially increases the complexity of my work and the learning curve for contributors.
Have a table level seqno as monotonically increasing number stamped for every mutation. When a subscriber connects it asks for rows > Subscriber's seqno-last-handled.
ibm also acquired datastax (managed pulsar) this year. building on top of these specialized managed service providers is becoming increasingly risky. at this point i'd rather use one of the kneecapped cloud provider offerings if possible (azure event hubs / aws msk / etc.) than risk being extorted in a few years as the result of some acquisition. at least you can work around the limitations..
anyone have an idea on how streamnative is doing? we're considering them for managed pulsar and unfortunately nobody else is in the game
And two years prior IBM acquired Ahana (PrestoDB SaaS). Totally agree that businesses need to much more carefully assess the risks of moving to these hosted open source platforms. Reminds me of when over a decade ago companies moved to Snowflake for their DWs because "our Teradata costs are out of control".
IBM is buying market share, not a surprise; at least one telecom has all their Kafka stuff on the Confluent cloud, and there must be 1000s of such customers.
The only way (95%+) companies selling to enterprises survive are if they get bought by a bigger platform and the sales force of the bigger platform just has to sell an extra line item. If you want to make money, track companies that have sales and marketing expenses same order / same / higher than revenue and then create a synthetic index of these companies (they need to have sold something like $1BN in license in aggregate over time - maintenance stream and you confirm that the pig can be sold somehow) . most will be eventually sold at a premium to their traded price.
11 billion invested in multiple hardware developments including moonshots would have been more sensible that for Kafka operator (remember MQSeries/MQ btw)
I have thought quite a bit today about the news from Confluent and IBM. I have friends and colleagues at both companies. When I was an undergrad at Carnegie Mellon University in the 1980s I used to wear a big brown and tan IBM button that said "THINK."
And here is a picture of Ben Lorica 罗瑞卡 interviewing Jay Kreps and other industry leaders at The Hive back on the evening of 25 February 2015. I believe they were talking about strategies for implementing Lambda Architecture.
All of which is to say: I have been a big fan of both companies for a long, long time. While today I am at employed at Redpanda Data, a direct competitor of Confluent, I hope to set aside any "team"-based bias to provide a sober and honest appraisal.
First, IBM has been shrinking. They were at 345,000 employees as of their 2020 Annual Report. But the COVID-19 pandemic was only one of many setbacks the company faced when Arvind Krishna took the helm as CEO. By December 2024 the employee base shrank to 270,000 — a drop of nearly 22%.
IBM revenue in 2020: $73.6B.
IBM revenue in 2024: $62.75B — a less-precipitous drop of 15%.
Revenue per employee over that period rose from $213k to $232k.
Confluent on its own? $400k.
And to compare: Amazon earns $580k per employee. Microsoft generates over $1M per. Nvidia? $4M-$5M.
And now, in November, they announced thousands of more layoffs. No one seems safe, regardless of job title. Those cut include positions in "artificial intelligence, marketing, software engineering and cloud technology."
Next, IBM has had a mixed record as a steward of acquisitions. Red Hat has doubled in revenues since their 2019 acquisition. For a while its headcount continued to grow, as much as 19,000 by 2023. But then it was forced into layoffs by parent IBM in April of that year, and then each year since, even while it remains one of the highest margin businesses in their portfolio.
SoftLayer — "IBM Cloud Classic" — also suffered significant layoffs in early 2025, with offshoring sending jobs to India.
DataStax had layoffs in 2023-2024, even before its acquisition was announced. Maybe they were "trimming the fat" to get into a shape to be acquired.
As a person with a long career in marketing, I know that many of the first roles to be jettisoned at a newly-acquired company tend to be in go-to-market organizations. Sales, Marketing, Developer Relations, Documentation, Training, Community, Customer Service. These tend to be seen as "nice to haves" by upper management. But their loss guts organizations and hollows out user-facing teams and open source communities.
My hope is that Confluent is spared as much of the pain and turmoil as possible. That, like Red Hat, it is run autonomously as much as possible.
A note on your "IBM has been shrinking" take: IBM spun out Kyndryl in 2021, including 90,000 employees [0]. That leaves the remaining company with 255,000 employees after the spin-off in 2021, which means it has actually grown by 15,000 people to reach the 270,000 in 2024.
The spin-off also explains the drop in revenue. In 2021, the first results reported excluding Kyndryl, IBM had revenues of $57.4B [1].
Since 2021, revenue grew by ~9% to reach $62.75B in 2024.
Fair. A good callout. And maybe the right move. However, a healthy IBM would not have needed to calve off its entire Global Technology Services business.
If Apache Foundation is where open source projects go to die ...
I can't think of a better place for longevity of open source projects than Apache (maybe I'm out of the loop?).
Compare it to the Linux Foundation where everything is a single commercial vendor sponsored project. At lease Apache requires independent governance and a diverse ecosystem before the project graduates.
Am I missing something with the Apache Foundation?
If you're serious, Kafka is a topic-centric message bus. Everything is a topic, not a queue, and its internals are optimized to achieve very quick at-least-once delivery.
IBM paid a ~30% premium on the current stock price, so all shareholders (I imagine employees own a bunch of shares) will get a decent chunk of cash.
Some redundant departments (HR, finance, accounting and the like) will be downsized after the acquisition.
Engineering and product will be unaffected in the short term, but in a year or two the IBM culture will start to seep in, and that would be a good time for tenured employees to start planning their exits. That's also when lock-up agreements will expire and the existing leadership of Confluent will depart and be replaced by IBM execs.
It depends a lot on which org they go into, and the motivations of the P&L owner of that division.
IBM is a really big and diverse company, in a way fundamentally different from most other big tech. In a sense, it is completely incoherent to refer to them as a singular entity.
My opinions are my own. I worked at IBM like a decade ago in a role where I could see the radically different motivations of divisions.
From experience, and to slightly refute the sibling replied, good for the confluent peeps that get flagged as being essential to the acquisition, they'll get a retention bonus of 100-300% of base pay spread over three years. The cutting of staff will begin likely in the 3-5 year time frame.
Ah yes, and every consumer should just do this in a while (true) loop as producers write to it. Very efficient and simple with no possibility of lock contention or hot spots. Genius, really.
I've implemented a distributed worker system on top of this paradigm.
I used ZMQ to connect nodes and the worker nodes would connect to an indexer/coordinator node that effectively did a `SELECT FROM ORDER BY ASC`.
It's easier than you may think and the bits here ended up with probably < 1000 SLOC all told.
- Coordinator node ingests from a SQL table
- There is a discriminator key for each row in the table for ordering by stacking into an in-memory list-of-lists
- Worker nodes are started with _n_ threads
- Each thread sends a "ready" message to the coordinator and coordinator replies with a "work" message
- On each cycle, the coordinator advances the pointer on the list, locks the list, and marks the first item in the child list as "pending"
- When worker thread finishes, it sends a "completed" message to the coordinator and coordinator replies with another "work" message
- Coordinator unlocks the list the work item originated from and dequeues the finished item.
- When it reaches the end of the list, it cycles to the beginning of the list and starts over, skipping over any child lists marked as locked (has a pending work item)
Effectively a distributed event loop with the events queued up via a simple SQL query.
Dead simple design, extremely robust, very high throughput, very easy to scale workers both horizontally (more nodes) and vertically (more threads). ZMQ made it easy to connect the remote threads to the centralized coordinator. It was effectively "self balancing" because the workers would only re-queue their thread once it finished work. Very easy to manage, but did not have hot failovers since we kept the materialized, "2D" work queue in memory. Though very rarely did we have issues with this.
Kafka is really not intended to improve on this. Instead, it's intended for very high-volume ETL processing, where a classical message queue delivering records would spend too much time on locking. Kafka is hot-rodding the message queue design and removing guard rails to get more messages thru faster.
Generally I say, "Message queues are for tasks, Kafka is for data." But in the latter case, if your data volume is not huge, a message queue for async ETL will do just fine and give better guarantees as FIFO goes.
In essence, Kafka is a very specialized version of much more general-purpose message queues, which should be your default starting point. It's similar to replacing a SQL RDBMS with some kind of special NoSQL system - if you need it, okay, but otherwise the general-purpose default is usually the better option.
Of course this is not the same as Kafka, but the comment I'm replying to:
> Ah yes, and every consumer should just do this in a while (true) loop as producers write to it. Very efficient and simple with no possibility of lock contention or hot spots. Genius, really.
Seemed to imply that it's not possible to build a high performance pub/sub system using a simple SQL select. I do not think that is true and it is in fact fairly easy to build a high performance pub/sub system with a simple SQL select. Clearly, this design as proposed is not the same as Kafka.
No, I implied that implementing pub/sub with just a select statement is silly because it is. Your implementation accounts for the downfalls of this approach with smart design using a message queue and intelligent locking semantics. Parent of my comment was glib and included none of this.
Yeah, but that's like doing actual engineering. Instead you should just point to Kafka and say that it's going to make your horrible architecture scale magically. That's how the pros do it.
Kafka isn't magic, but it's close. If a single-node solution like an SQL database can handle your load then why shouldn't you stick with SQL? Kafka is not for you. Kafka is for workloads that would DDoS Postgres.
It's one of my favorite patterns, because it's the highest-impact, lowest-hanging fruit to fix in many systems that have hit serious scaling bottlenecks.
I was in the midst of writing a snarky reply and then realized my actual issue with Kafka is that people reach for it way too often and use it in ways that don't really make sense.
Kind of like how people use docker for evrything, when what you really should be doing is learn how to package software.
Agree on the Kafka thing though. I've seen so many devs trip over Kafka topics, partitions and offsets when their throughput is low enough that RabbitMQ would do fine.
The people distributing software should shut them damn up about how the rest of the system it runs in is configured. (But not you, your job is packaging full systems.)
That said, it seems to me that this is becoming less of a problem.
Nothing inherently wrong with the core product IMHO. The issue is more with Confluent, who have been constantly swinging from hot buzzword to hot buzzword for the last few years in search of growth. Confluent cloud is very expensive, and you still have to deal with a surprising amount of scaling headaches. I have people I consider friends that work there, so I don't want to go too deep into their various missteps, but the Kafka ecosystem has been largely stagnant outside of getting rid of Zookeeper and simplifying operations/deployment. There have been some decent quality of life fixes, but the platform is very expensive, yet if you are really all-in on Kafka, you would be insane to not get support from Confluent- it can break in surprising ways.
So you are stuck with some really terrible tradeoffs- Go with Confluent Cloud, pay a fortune, and still likely have some issues to deal with. Or you could go with Confluent Platform, still have to pay people to operate it, while Confluent the company focuses most of their attention on Cloud and still charges you a fortune. Or you could just go completely OS and forgo anything Confluent and risk being really up the river when something inevitably breaks, or you have to learn the hard way that librdkafka has poor support for a lot of the shiny features discussed in the release notes.
Redpanda has surpassed them from a technical quality perspective, but Kafka has them beat on the ecosystem and the sheer inertia of moving from one platform to another. Kafka for example was built in a time of spinning rust hard disks, and expects to be run on general purpose compute nodes, where Redpanda will actually look at your hardware and optimize the number of threads its spawns for the box it is on- assuming it is going to be the only real app running there, which is true for anything but a toy deployment.
This is my experience from running platform teams and being head of messaging at multiple companies.
So much that we presume in the modern cloud wasn't a given when Apache Kafka was first released in 2011.
kevstev wrote just above about Kafka being written to run on spinning disks (HDDs), while Redpanda was written to take advantage of the latest hardware (local NVMe SSDs). He has some great insights.
As well, Apache Kafka was written in Java, back in an era when you were weren't quite sure what operating system you might be running on. For example, when Azure first launched they had a Windows NT-based system called Windows Azure. Most everyone else had already decided to roll Linux. Microsoft refused to budge on Linux until 2014, and didn't release its own Azure Linux until 2020.
Once everyone decided to roll Linux, the "write once run everywhere" promise of Java was obviated. But because you were still locked into a Java Virtual Machine (JVM) your application couldn't optimize itself to the underlying hardware and operating system you were running on.
Redpanda, for example, is written in C++ on top of the Seastar framework (seastar.io). The same framework at the heart of ScyllaDB. This engine is a thread-per-core shared-nothing architecture that allows Redpanda to optimize performance for hardware utilization in ways that a Java app can only dream of. CPU utilization, memory usage, IO throughput. It's all just better performance on Redpanda.
It means that you're actually getting better utility out of the servers you deploy. Less wasted / fallow CPU cycles — so better price-performance. Faster writes. Lower p99 latencies. It's just... better.
Now, I am biased. I work at Redpanda now. But I've been a big fan of Kafka since 2015. I am still bullish on data streaming. I just think that Apache Kafka, as a Java-based platform, needs some serious rearchitecture,
Even Confluent doesn't use vanilla Kafka. They rewrote their own engine, Kora. They claim it is 10x faster. Or 30x faster. Depending on what you're measuring.
This is so fascinating to me. I mean how IBM keeps taking over other companies, but they consistently deliver low quality/bottom-tier services and products. Why do they keep doing the same thing again and again? How are they generating actual revenue this way?
Ok, so does anyone remember 'Watson'? It was the chatgpt before chatgpt. they built it in house. Why didn't they compete with OpenAI like Google and Anthropic are doing, with in-house tools? They have a mature PowerPC (Power9+? now?)setup, lots of talent to make ML/LLMs work and lots of existing investment in datacenters and getting GPU-intense workloads going.
I don't disagree that this acquisition is good strategy, I'm just fascinated (Schadenfreude?) to witness the demise of confluent now. I think economists should study this, it might help avert larger problems.
Watson was a marketing exercise designed to sell a bunch of disconnected text and image processing libraries pulled together by consulting services. It did not function as advertised.
At one point we worked with a large energy company that was basically sold something LLM-like (large-scale indexing and searching/querying of documents) in 2016 or so. IBM had a team of 90 people doing full-time data ingestion for something like 26,000 documents. We got asked to do a counter-product in two weeks, which was literally just a TF-IDF search and some smarts around ingesting different types of documents. Both solutions performed approximately equally, except one cost something in the order of $185m and one cost $40k. Watson continued running for about a year until an external data science contractor realised they could query Watson for highly confidential board meeting notes, and it would provide full previews into the documents. The project was shuttered shortly after.
Alas, nobody gets fired for hiring IBM.
Yep, and I think they've already used the Watson brand for a good bunch of different technologies, and most if them have been retired for lack of success. In fact, seems like a couple weeks ago they've sold a good chunk of Watson Healthcare to private equity [0]. Edit: When I talk about the lack of success, I talk not only about market success, but the usefulness of the product.
Until 3/4 years go I was in healthcare for 15 years, a good bunch of them being partners with IBM in radiology imaging solutions. I've been in their IBM La Gaude (former) research/presentations lab a couple times and I've seen a lot of their Watson product come and go, without much success. I have to say that I've seen a couple that were very interesting, but were mostly statistical, with no AI/LLM/... involvement.
And don't talk me about Softlayer/Bluemix. Or their private cloud racks that I cannot even remember their name...
--
> Watson was a marketing exercise designed to sell a bunch of disconnected text and image processing libraries pulled together by consulting services. It did not function as advertised.
Okay, but why can't IBM enter the LLM business reviving the Watson brand?
They have?
https://www.ibm.com/watson
I'd wager most people around here would have more use for Granite, however.
https://www.ibm.com/granite
Why in the world would economists need to study this? It's been known that large bureaucracies have been dysfunctional for over a couple of decades now if not centuries. The large reason is because 1) the incentives to do great work are not there (most of the credit for a huge company's success goes to the CEO who gets 100X the salary of a regular worker while delivering usually pretty much nothing) 2) politics usually plays a huge role which gives a huge advantage to your competition (i.e. your competition needs to spend less time on politics and more time on the actual product) and 3) human beings don't functionally work well in groups larger than 100-250 due to the overwhelming complexity of the communication needed in order to make this type of structure work. Incentives though I think are the primary driver - most people at companies like IBM don't have any incentives to actually care about the product they produce and that's the secret behind the ruin of almost every large company.
Edit: you also seem to be giving too much credence to Watson. Watson was actually mostly a marketing tool designed to win in Jeopardy and nothing else. It was constructed specifically to compete in that use-case and was nowhere near to the architecture of a general transformer which is capable of figuring out meta-patterns within language and structurally understanding language. You can read about Watson's design and architecture here if you're curious: https://www.cs.cornell.edu/courses/cs4740/2011sp/papers/AIMa...
More like we need psychologists to ask "why are companies still working with IBM's efficiencies 30 years after its peak?" The workers don't have to care but the businesses dealing with IBM should.
I may be wrong but I think it's mostly for things like enterprise support in case something goes wrong. IBM has had a large footprint in enterprises (WebSphere MQ, etc). People don't want disruptions in case your own kafka cluster with in-house engineers accountable for everything. So having enterprise support for product/ infra gives a sense of safety. At times rightly so. Depends on a lot of factors- risk appetite, capabilities of in-house engineers, what's at stake, and mostly psychological safety, etc.
> most of the credit for a huge company's success goes to the CEO who gets 100X the salary of a regular worker while delivering usually pretty much nothing
Well, in Confluent's case I'm not so sure that's true given that their CEO is also the company founder as well as one of the original authors of Apache Kafka.
Not Confluent, IBM.
Everything will make sense when you realize that IBM is a consulting company. They don't care about building great products. In fact building self-serve products will directly take away from their consulting revenue. They instead need to be good at marketing and selling their services. Watson was exactly that - a marketing demo that got them in the news cycle and helped them sell a giant wave of contracts under a single brand to unsuspecting CIOs of legacy non-tech companies. Every acquisition helps with this goal. Red Hat - locking companies into licenses and support contracts for the OS. HashiCorp & Confluent - locking companies into support contracts for their cloud infra.
>> Ok, so does anyone remember 'Watson'? [...] Why didn't they compete with OpenAI like Google and Anthropic are doing, with in-house tools?
> Everything will make sense when you realize that IBM is a consulting company.
This and.
The 'and' being that consulting companies, in their DNA, build solutions for their customers.
Which is a very different business than building products for all users.
Not least because the former is guided by understanding a customer's requirements, while the later is having a strong intuition (backed up by market fit) about what all users want.
I'm pretty sure there might not be a full end user capable (in the sense of design-build-iterate) product team in IBM at this point.
Mostly because I don't think they've any middle/upper management that can think that way. They've got the engineers!
The service part you are likely referring to is now Kyldryl, a separate company. IBM now focus on software and cloud. There are still services but are much less prominent.
FWIW, both of your comments can have some truth:
- the pure consultancy is another company now - the IBM portfolio of software "products" are being packaged in ways that emphasize professional services and elaborate licensing schemes (rather than turnkey software)
> they consistently deliver low quality/bottom-tier services and products
I worked with IBMers. The main priority for a lot of them is to ensure continuous employment for themselves and their buddies. They'd add unnecessary complexity to a product to stretch out the development for another couple of years. And they work at leisure pace for tech. Actual 9 to 5, many coffee breaks. They can't compete.
> And they work at leisure pace for tech. Actual 9 to 5, many coffee breaks.
Ultra-based. We should all be so lucky.
You mean you DONT work a leisurely 6-8 hour day with breaks? I thought everybody did that until there was some urgent firefighting
I sure do, if I'm at my computer longer the work quality goes way down. I'm thinking about it much longer each day than working on it.
no you need to be a "cracked engineer" working "7 days a week in our house/office in SF"
hustle culture bro, everyone needs 996
we are achieving true egalitarianism here, everyone can be a slave regardless of color, creed, or origin
"Actual 9 to 5", meaning the standard 40 hour work week?
If someone is telling you to work more than 40 hours a week in a salaried position, and they're not paying out the nose, you're being scammed.
depends, "out the nose" is relative based on what else you could be doing and what else is out there
and no job i've had considered 9-5 40 hours after a 1 hour lunch break
Well, I don't know anyone who takes a full 1 hour lunch break -- back when I was in the office, I reckon it was more like 30-45 minutes? But people at all 4 office jobs I've worked did a standard 9-5 schedule.
But yes, "out the nose" is qualified by your particular situation. For me, that might be 2-3x my normal salary, which would mean I could take breaks for a few years or retire sooner.
RSUs :) //Steve Jobs e-mail smiley
I worked with IBM several decades ago for a customer project, and the solution suggested by an IBM'er for backing up a NoSQL database (Lotus Notes) on a daily basis was to translate and migrate the data to a relational one (DB2), then use a DB2 tape backup system to back it up.
When I pointed out that this was a stupid way to do it, they openly told me that they just wanted to sell DB2.
It's not stupid when you can bill for $1Mi instead of $100k ;)
at least they are honest? Also "thanks for the tape backup idea anyway"
Tape backups were the norm back then.
They were only honest because I was working for an IBM Business Partner. They wouldn't disclose it to the customer.
They will die happy knowing they did more than just create shareholder value.
The way you put it, looks like IBM is a pretty good place to work at
Aside from having like 9 managers, 8 of whom are totally purposeless in your professional life, then yeah it’s not bad. The benefits are good.
I worked with some pretty talented and dedicated people at IBM. The “hop on a 2am call to put out a fire because they happened to check their email and they owed the person on pager duty a beer” kind of people.
That company was a red tape rats nest, but that’s management’s fault. And you get lazy people or shit departmental culture at various points in nearly every company, but painting a tens-of-thousands strong workforce with that brush is ridiculous.
Sounds miserable if you like solving real problems.
I do advisory for pre-Series A startups as a last ditch effort to save them.
I do not get the unified industry delusion about "why X company has a bad product". It is usually either one of two things: comfort or ego. Everyone knows that but do not want to say it out loud.
I have seen these happen time and time again. Companies that are cash cow, do not care to do a better job. There is no incentive to do a better job. Moreover, the recurring thing is that if I did something different, I wouldn't have been this much successful in the first place.
The rest of the smart consultants walk on eggshells. They hint at stuff but never want to bite the hand that feeds them because the clients would rather fire you than be challenged.
It is not an IBM thing; it's generic business thing to some degree. I really have to call this a delusion. Good consultants submit generic reports that just tell them what they want to hear. It is not you; it is the economy. Stupid consultants that are well-meaning tell them they should be the best on competitor intel. Do you not think some stupid person did not approach IBM to do what Oracle or AWS is doing? Of course, they did, and they were fired immediately.
The best consultants are less of a consultant and more of a therapist.
After doing only four-month projects for the entire year, this year's realization was that nobody in the industry wants to do better. Everyone is in their place because of ego or a perceived sense of success. Or because of a grand conspiracy theory. IBM has a significant number of government contracts, so they are set for life because the vast majority government IT systems are pigeonholed into IBM systems. The acquisition is to tell the shareholders that we are so successful that we can literally buy companies. We do not even care to do things. Whatever the new thing is, we will buy it at some point.
Sounds like the German government. Or probably other governments as well.
I'll say this about IBM: because it's so old, it was the most diverse company I ever worked for- including age, nationality, race, sex, and any other category you can think of. Basically you had all types of people in all stages of life, not just young white workaholic tech-bros. The founders are long gone, so everyone there (including CEO) is a professional- meaning nobody has any kind of personal attachment to the company. We were all in the same boat, as it were. When your older coworker suddenly disappears due to a stroke, it puts things in perspective.
The fast-paced startup is really the hack, combining the energy of youth with the ego-mania of their founders. Ask yourself, is it healthy?
Anyway, IBM's customers tend to be other fortune 100s and governments- basically other similar organizations, and my experience was that we took care of them pretty well. The products were not pretty (no Steve Jobs-like person to enforce beauty), and rather complex due to all the enterprise requirements. But they were quite high quality, particularly the hardware.
The awe induced when standing in front of a brand new, kitted out x95 frame with all its drawers full and that special shade of IBM blue on everything is definitely something. Pull out the HMC and just think about how many decades of R&D and experience and tears went into the entire system.
I think the driving force behind the look of the recent mainframes is from IBM's Italian designer, Camillo Sassano:
https://www.idsa.org/profile/sassano/
Well there's a whole group, but Camillo is the guy I worked with when I was there.
>> Actual 9 to 5, many coffee breaks
Found my dream job :-)
We should all be so blessed. :pray:
> Ok, so does anyone remember 'Watson'? It was the chatgpt before chatgpt. they built it in house
I do. I remember going to a chat once where they wanted to get people on-board in using it. It was 90 minutes of hot air. They "showed" how Watson worked and how to implement things, and I think every single person in the room knew they were full of it. Imagine we were all engineers and there were no questions at the end.
Comparing Watson to LLMs is like comparing a rock to an AIM-9 Sidewinder.
Watson was nothing like ChatGPT. The first iteration was a system specifically built to play Jeopardy. It did some neat stuff with NLP and information retrieval, but it was all still last generation AI/ML technology. It then evolved into a brand that IBM used to sell its consulting services. The product itself was a massive failure because it had no real applications and was too weak as a general purpose chat bot.
I had no idea about what Watson was initially meant to solve.
I do remember they tried to sell it - at least in the meeting I went - as a general purpose chatbot.
I did try briefly to understand how to use it, but the documentation was horrendous (As in, "totally devoid of any technical information")
Watson was intended to solve fuzzy optimization problems.
Unfortunately, the way it solved fuzzy was 'engineer the problem to fit Watson, then engineer the output to be usable.'
Which required every project to be a huge custom implementation lift. Similar to early Palantir.
> Watson was intended to solve fuzzy optimization problems.
> Unfortunately, the way it solved fuzzy was 'engineer the problem to fit Watson, then engineer the output to be usable.'
I'm going to review my understanding of fuzzy optimization because this last line doesn't fit the bill in it.
If anyone is curious to see what Watson actually was you can find it here (it was nowhere near to a generalized large langue model -- mostly made for winning in Jeopardy): https://www.cs.cornell.edu/courses/cs4740/2011sp/papers/AIMa...
>Why do they keep doing the same thing again and again? How are they generating actual revenue this way?
IBM has a ton of Enterprise software, backed by a bunch of consultants hiding in boring businesses/governments.
They also do a ton of outsourcing work where they will be big enterprise IT support desk and various other functions. In fact, that side has gotten so big, IBM now has more employees in India in then any other country.
Your fascination seems hinged on the fact that IBM has "lots of talent to make ML/LLMs work" which judging by what they've put out so far and talk publicly about, is very far from the truth. Anyone who has a clue seems to (rightly) have left IBM decades ago, and left are business people who think "Managed to increase margin by 0.1%" is something to celebrate.
It’s a shame because people forget how good IBM research was back in the day. I do wonder if they still have great people in those r&d labs, or if they all left.
There are good people in IBM. But they don't have the resources behind them anymore. Look at the market cap of ms, Amazon. Google, meta et al, compared to IBM.
To be a bit more candid, they have lots of employees outside of the US (particularly in India). and both in the US and elsewhere, people need to eat. They may not have the talent to innovate new tech like OpenAI and others, or do cutting-edge R&D, but they certainly have the talent to take LLM breakthroughs and adapt. They could have competed with many of the B-Tier LLM services out there with the right leadership.
> but they certainly have the talent to take LLM breakthroughs and adapt
I'll believe that when I see it. They had a decade headstart with all of this, and yeah, could have been at the forefront. But they're not, and because of the organization itself, they're unlikely to have a shot at even getting close to there. Seems they know this themselves too, as they're targeting the lower end of the market now with their Granite models, rather than shooting for the stars and missing, like they've done countless of times before.
> Ok, so does anyone remember 'Watson'? It was the chatgpt before chatgpt. they built it in house. Why didn't they compete with OpenAI like Google and Anthropic are doing, with in-house tools?
Leadership in IBM also thought that Watson was like what what OAI/Anthropic/Google are doing now. It wasn't. Watson was essentially a ML pipeline over-optimized on Jeopardy, which is why it failed in literally every other domain.
Outside of Jeopardy, Watson was just a brand.
Sure, but they were doing that stuff. They had ML people, infrastructure, marketing, branding,etc... already. Their product sucked, but they could have copy-catted OpenAI in 2022+ like everyone else.
I don't think that would have gotten them much of anywhere. They already spent a decade trying to find markets for Watson to fit and generally failing at it. The problem with Watson wasn't technology, it was that it had no direction.
They gave up on watson about 18 months before llm's popped up, and they have simply just not got enough cash on hand to compete. While the big boys grew fantastically bigger over the past 15 years as cloud happened ibm fumbled time after time and shrank ever smaller, and is now desperately hoping it can stay relevant. but in the end they just haven't got the resources to compete on that stage anymore.
The recent interview with Arvind had the “grapes are too green, anyway” energy. They missed the train because they were licking their Watson wounds. Then sorta regretted it but it’s too late.
Same thing happened with their cloud offering. They laughed at AWS, then tried to catch up, then missed and pivoted to “hybrid” (cloud and local).
If they hadn't sold the ThinkPad (and related) brands I would care.
Have you seen Office Space? I'm sure it was based on IBM
To add to that i think their R&D labs along with HPE were one of the few to innovate on the memristor and actually build some fascinating concept machines.If i rememeber HPE's was 'The Machine'.
Athough i think they just di/dont know how to adapt these to market that isnt a enterprise behemoth , rather than develop/price it so more devs can take a hold and experiment.
HPE's advanced technology constructed "The Machine" from Plexiglas, not known for its high switching performance. It was a total scam of moron management by their revenant R&D lab management. I saw this close up.
There are entire niches of us that make a living (not at IBM) making certain IBM products actually do what they're supposed to. From my vantage point I see essentially zero maintenance going on with their products. I sincerely don't understand the market (why do people keep paying hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars for non-existent support?) - but whatever.
Just to be clear, you honestly believe that IBM does no maintenance.
For my package on one VERSION alone: https://gitlab.com/redhat/centos-stream/src/kernel/centos-st...
I dont know if you were trying to be funny, or simply dont understand how much change really goes on.
What I'm hearing you say is that IBM is basically just a private equity firm now.
IBM is where good (acquired) software goes to die. RIP Clearcase.
good? That POS is the one SW that 100% deserves it place in hell
Yes it really was quite good despite all the hate it seems to get in internet comments. I used it for several years. The feature set, particularly config specs and dynamic views, was brilliant. The product was pretty mature and complete 25 years ago. I agree that administration was complicated and performance could be slow if misconfigured. We configured right, it was very intuitive and pleasant to use. IBM has effectively killed it by continuing to charge an excessive premium while adding nothing significant since they bought Rational (for Clearcase, DOORS, Apex etc.)
I’m pretty convinced there is a bell curve of “understanding what IBM does” where idiots and geniuses both have absolutely no idea.
It really is probably that strangest company in tech which you think could be mysterious and intriguing. But no one cares. It’s like no one wants to look behind the boring suit and see wtf. From my low point on that bell curve I can’t see how they are even solvent.
Power10-based processors are manufactured by Samsung using a 7 nm process
In Sweden, IBM makes a shit tonne of money from SAP implementation consulting.
Just the set the record straight on how and why these acquisitions go at IBM. This is a first hand account working at and with IBM and competitors and being in the room as tech-guy accessory to murder.
IBM lives off huge multi-year contract deals with their customers, each are multi-multi-million dollars worth. IBM has many of these contracts, maybe ~2000 of them around the planet, including your own government wherever it is that you live. This is ALL that matters to IBM. ALL. That. Matters.
These huge contracts get renegotiated at every X years. IBM renewal salespeople are tough and rough, in particular the ones on the renewal teams, and they spend every minute of every hour in between renewals grooming the decision makers, sponsors, champions and stakeholders (and their families) within these big corporations. Every time you see an IBM logo at a sports event (and there are many IBM-sponsored events), that's not IBM marketing to you the ad-viewer. They are there for grooming their stakeholders, who fight hard to be in the best IBM sponsored-seats at those venues, and in the glamorous pre and after party, celebs included. IBM also sponsors other stuff, even special programs at universities. Who go to these universities? Oh, you bet, the stakeholder's kids, who get the IBM-treatment and IBM-scholarship at those places.
But the grooming is not enough. The renewal is not usually at risk - who has the balls to uninstall IBM out of a large corp? What is at risk is IBM's growth, which is fueled by price increases at every renewal point not the sale of new software or new clients - there are no new clients for IBM anywhere anymore! These price increases need to happen, not just because of inflation but because of the stock price and bonuses that keep the renewal army and management going strong, since this is a who-knows-who business. To justify the price increase internally at those huge client corps (not to the stakeholder but to their bosses, boards, users, etc) IBM needs to throw a bone into these negotiations. The bone is whatever acquisition you see they make: Red Hat, Hashicorp... Or developments like Watson. Or whatever. They are only interested in acquiring products or entering markets that can be thrown at those renewal negotiations, with very few exceptions. Why Confluent? Well, because they probably did their research and decided that existing Confluent licenses can be applied to one (yeah, one) or many renewal contracts as growth fuel for at least 1-to-N iterations of renewals.
Renewal contracts correspond anywhere from 60% to 95% of IBM's revenue, depending on how you account for the the consulting arm and "new" (software/hw sales/subscriptions). I particularly have not seen lots of companies hiring IBM consultants "just because we love IBM consultants and their rates", so consulting at a site is always tied to the renewal somehow, even if billed separately or not billed at all. Same for new sw sales, if a company wants something IBM has on their catalog from their own whim and will, then that will just probably be packed into the next renewal because that's stakeholder leverage for justifying the renewal's increase base rate. Remember, a lot of IBM's mainframes are not even sold, they are just rentals.
Most IBM investment into research programs, new tech (quantum computing!) etc are there just to help the renewals and secure a new Govt deal here and there. How? Well, maybe the increase in the renewal for the, ie, State of Illinois contract gets a bone thrown in for a new "Quantum Research Center (by IBM)" at some U of I campus or tech park that the now visionary Governor will happily cut the ribbon, photo op and do the speech. Oh wait! I swear I made this up as an example, but this one is actually true, lol:
https://newsroom.ibm.com/2024-12-12-ibm-and-state-of-illinoi...
You get the drill?
having worked in a government agency that ditched IBM, let me offer a view of what that looks like from the customer side:
IBM bought a company whose product we'd been using for a while, and had a perpetual license for. A few years after the purchase, IBM tried to slip a clause into a support renewal that said we were "voluntarily" agreeing to revoke the perpetual license and move to a yearly per-seat license. Note: this was in a contract with the government, for support, not for the product itself. They then tried to come after us for seat licenses costs. Our lawyers ripped them apart, as you can't add clauses about licensing for software to a services contract, and we immediately tore out the product and never paid IBM another dime.
I tell this story not to be all "cool story, bro", but to point out that IBM does focus on renewal growth, but they're not geniuses...they're just greedy assholes who sometimes push for growth in really stupid ways.
They have some real money printers that most probably haven't heard of. IBM Maximo for example dominates some industries the way SAP and Salesforce does.
Confluent was trading at less than 50% of its IPO price when IBM made the offer. The stock and the company has been going sideways for several years now, keeps growing revenues but loses even more as most of it is in Sales and Marketing. In which world is this seen as some sort of extraordinary company that will get sabotaged by IBM. Seems Confluent management knows the writing on the wall, IBM will clean up (fire a bunch of sales and management guys) and make this a workable business. It will seem brutal for some Confluent guys but that's because their business is broken; and only someone from outside can come in and fix it as the current senior management cannot.
IBM has been around for over a hundred years, maybe they know a thing or two about running a software business :-)
I joined IBM over 40 years ago, like my pappy before me.
My main takeaway from IBM's longevity is just how astonishingly long big companys' death rattles can be, not how great IBM are at running software businesses.
Are they dying? IBM’s stock is up 160% over the past 5 years.
No. They are a multi-generational institution at this point and they are constantly evolving. If you work there it definitely FEELS like they are dying because the thing you spent the last 10 years of your career on is going away and was once heralded as the "next big thing." That said, IBM fascinated me when I was acquired by them because it is like a living organism. Hard to kill, fully enmeshed in both the business and political fabric of things and so ultimately able to sustain market shifts.
That's an interesting and enlightening way to look at it.
For me it was the death of IBM's preeminence in IT. When I started there a job at IBM was prestigious,a job for life. More than once I was told that we had a lengthy backlog of inventions and technological wonders that could be wheeled out of the plant if competitors ever nipped too closely at IBM's heels.
At that time IBM had never made a single person redundant - anywhere in the world. The company had an incredible sophisticated internal HR platform that did elaborate succession planning and considered training and promotion as major workforce factors - there was little need to think much about recruitment because jobs for life. IBM could win any deal, maybe needing only to discount a little if things were very competitive.
It's impossible to imagine now what a lofty position the company held. It's not unfair to say that, if not dead, the IBM of old is no longer with us.
To be fair, the whole job market has changed. Layoffs and the death of "a job for life" is not unique to IBM.
I think the pace of progress and innovation has, for better or worse, meant that companies can no longer count on successfully evolving only from the inside through re-training and promotions over the average employee's entire career arc (let's say 30 years).
The reality is that too many people who seek out jobs in huge companies like IBM are not looking to constantly re-invent themselves and learn new things and keep pushing themselves into new areas every 5-10 years (or less), which is table stakes now for tech companies that want to stay relevant.
Honestly, I think that's people reacting to the market more than it's the market reacting to people.
If your average zoomer had the ability to get a job for life that paid comparably well by a company that would look after them, I don't think loyalty would be an issue.
The problem is today, sticking with a company typically means below market reward, which is particularly acute given the ongoing cost of living crises affecting the west.
It is absolutely a different company. I had the opportunity to intern there twice in the late 70's and then was acquired by them in 2015, the IBM of 1978 and the IBM of 2015 were very different businesses. Having "grown up" so to speak in the Bay Area tech company ecosystem where companies usually died when their founding team stopped caring, IBM was a company that had decided, as an institution, to encapsulate what it took to survive in the company's DNA. I had a lot of great discussions (still do!) with our integration executive (that is the person who is responsible for integrating the acquisition with the larger company) about IBM's practice in terms of change.
I interned there one summer and I felt like 9 years ago when I was there the company died 30 years prior. It’s a super weird place to work
I don't think they're dying at all, they're just become yet another consultancy/outsourcing shop
turning into a rent-seeking-behavior engine.
the final end-state of the company, like a glorious star turning into a black hole
exactly
IBM is a consulting business, not a software business. Their software sucks, and every actual software engineer knows it. IBM has a business selling to big, old, backwards enterprise businesses who wouldn't know good software from literal pieces of faeces.
That's not entirely true. Db2, for example, is a well-respected database.
Are they really a software business?
Investopedia says[0] they make 60% of their profit from "Software" but how much of that is "providing cloud solutions" and similar software-adjacent consulting exercises?
[0]: https://www.investopedia.com/how-ibm-makes-money-4798528
To me it makes sense when it comes to the stock. It's not like someone goes to Robinhood or whatever and goes... Hey you know what's underrated? Kafka! Calls on Confluent!
Not a Hacker News take I would have expected 10 years ago. Today, though. I agree.
Genuine question: how did the IBM acquisitions of Red Hat and HashiCorp turn out?
For Red Hat, there's no longer an official "public" distribution of RHEL, but apart from that they seemingly have been left alone and able to continue to develop their own products. But that's only my POV as a user of OSS Red Hat products at home and of RHEL and OpenShift at work.
We moved off HashiCorp's Terraform Cloud when they tried to hike the price 100x on us, although that was technically pre-acquisition I think (it was their move to resource-based pricing). In talking with our account manager, they basically said they only really cared about enterprise accounts, and that migrating away would probably make sense for us.
HashiCorp also changed their licenses to non-open-source licenses, but again I think this was technically pre-acquisition (I think as they were gearing up to be a more attractive target for an exit).
In addition to this, I’ve noticed that OpenTofu is gaining much more interesting features and are actually acting upon long-requested functionality that HashiCorp has refused to implement (example: provider for_each in 1.9.0)
Yeah I just implemented a new stack and noticed OpenTofu now supports client side encryption for the state files in with keys stored in Azure KeyVault (in the latest 1.11 release). AWS and GCP had been supported for a while.
Client side state encryption was one of the things which HashiCorp always gatekeeped for HashiCorp Cloud and never implemented in the Open Souce / Sourece Available versions.
> (I think as they were gearing up to be a more attractive target for an exit).
A common conspiracy theory, but not true.
Source: the guy the company was named after
Then why move away from open source?
Yeah how would you know?
j/k Love ghostty!
> were gearing up to be a more attractive target for an exit
An "exit" from the public market?
Yes. They were burning the cash they raised from IPO as weren't profitable and no real path to profitability. Needed to find a buyer to take private as the other option - raise debt or print shares - wasn't going to happen as the share price had massively tanked and wasn't going to go up any time soon.
Hopefully mitchellh will write a book about Hashicorp some time. Would be fascinating to read the inside take.
Former-Hashi employee here: there's a clear prioritization of enterprise products. So much so that I would not be surprised if they stopped supporting the Open Source projects entirely. That would be a big boost for the forks.
Red Hat has far more autonomy. We are not structured the same.
On the HR side — many good people are leaving; new hires have to be on-site for 3 days and located in 4 "strategic" locations in the US.
The argument has been made that the real value of RH lies in the people working there. And if IBM were to interfere too heavy-handedly, those people would just leave, and RH would become basically worthless.
Maybe that's how it should work, but it's not how it actually works.
The culture makes the company. Everyone on the lower rungs of the org chart knows this, because it's what they live and breathe every day. A positive, supportive workplace culture with clear goals and relative autonomy is a thing of beauty. You routinely find people doing more work than they really have to because they believe in the mission, or their peers, or the work is just fun. People join the company (and stay) because they WANT to not because they have to.
Past a certain company size, upper management NEVER sees this. They are always looking outward: strategy, customers, marketing, competition. Never in. They've been trained to give great motivational speeches that instill a sense of company pride and motivation for about 30 seconds. After that, employee morale is HR's job.
I have worked in a company that got acquired while it was profitable. The culture change was slow but dramatic. We went from a fun, dynamic culture with lots of teamwork and supportive management, to one step or two above Office Space. As far as the acquiring company was concerned, everything we were doing didn't matter, even if it worked. We had to conform to their systems and processes, or find new jobs. Most of us eventually did the latter.
Somehow Red Hat seems to be a notable exception. Although IBM owns Red Hat, they seem to have mostly left it alone instead of absorbing it. The name "IBM" doesn't even appear on redhat.com. Because I'm an outsider, I can't say whether IBM meddled in Red Hat's HR or management, but I would guess not.
There have been annual layoffs at RedHat since 2023. This year they just laid off more. The layoffs this year are expected to be "a low single digit percentage of our global workforce." Which will likely include hundreds of folks at Red Hat.
1. https://www.cio.com/article/4084855/ibm-to-cut-thousands-of-...
2. https://www.newsobserver.com/news/business/article312796900....
There haven't been layoffs at Red Hat after 2023, whereas according to your statement there should have been two more rounds. The layoffs from your articles are at IBM, and did not affect Red Hat.
Thank you for the correction.
Well, there is CentOS Stream:
https://www.centos.org/centos-stream/
And Fedora is still the upstream of RHEL, nothing changed there.
It seems like most users got tired of the unknowns with CentOS and went to Alma/Rocky. Doesn't help that most third party software vendors also didn't bother to support it.
I migrated our company off Terraform to Pulumi as a direct result of the acquisition.
How has it been? Sincere question.
Gnome has stagnated significantly.
The Gnome desktop that shipped with Solaris over two decades ago is just as useful, possibly more useful, as the tablet-oriented hamburger menu UI of today.
Yes, two decades: https://adtmag.com/articles/2003/08/04/solaris-gets-a-gnome-...
I'm not sure this is bad? It's still maintained, and it isn't like there are frequent revolutions in UI design - if it works, it works.
Slow and boring is a pretty nice place to be.
If only it had stagnated around gnome 2.0.
MATE exists. You can use it right now.
I do. It's great that the UI is stagnated, but unfortunately the UX is too. Things like bluetooth not being integrated with the DE, and various details that we take for granted not working correctly
The people on the Red Hat desktop team that work on GNOME are killing it. I think you might not be paying attention. Not every change is visible.
Has it? I feel like Gnome has made great progress the last few years
>> Gnome has stagnated significantly.
GTK is still alive. It seems like Cosmic desktop with GTK apps will be a reasonable path forward. Of course there's KDE and QT, but I mean as an alternative to those.
Cosmic isn't there yet. I don't use GNOME but at least it works.
Could that be due to increased popularity of KDE?
Linux on the desktop isn't a lucrative business
One thing that's happened is that OpenShift has an IBM stamp of approval, which means it is now available in more organisations, that would otherwise have clung to more obscure mainframes and worse clown platforms.
From my perspective, as someone who is deeply suspicious of IBM in general, that's a plus.
> no longer an official "public" distribution of RHEL
What do you mean by that, like "centos/stream" (aka https://www.centos.org/download/ ) ?
“With the acquisition of Confluent, IBM will provide the smart data platform for enterprise IT, purpose-built for AI.”
https://newsroom.ibm.com/2025-12-08-ibm-to-acquire-confluent...
I don't understand how this acquisition is relevant for AI.
Every time an executive says AI the number goes up.
Always Increasing
Event-driven AI decision making is the C-suite wet dream. A large % of major orgs run Kafka for their eventing systems.
So the idea is sorta watching the wire of streaming data with autonomous agents or something like that?
Exactly. An agent may be acting on the contents of individual events, but also spotting trends and patterns in events, and intervening where needed/instructed.
Cybersyn for capitalists.
not for much longer
Everything in IT is AI now. We should just change the industry initialism to AIT.
It's depressing how IBM always uses the same language with every single acquisition. They don't care about the actual tech, only the patents and the ability to resell it.
As I read the release, it just sounded like "something something something data, something something something AI."
AI is just the lastest buzzword. Everyone has it, because they have to. Don't look behind the curtain.
Streaming, EDA can solve lot of data challenges for enterprise AI use cases
Anything today has to contain the word "AI" otherwise it simply won't be considered.
You can double your company's value by saying it's an AI company. Easiest, simplest way to create value.
They probably have cursor licenses
AI Agent for Kafka Consumer group
/s
Maybe a good time to consider alternatives https://www.redpanda.com/compare/redpanda-vs-kafka
I led the engineering team of a large adtech company (TripleLift - order of hundreds of billions of events/day) and we evolved from self hosting Kafka, to paying a vendor (Instacluster), to migrating to RedPanda.
RedPanda was a huge win for us. Confluent never made sense to us since we were always so cost conscious but the complexity/risk of managing a critical part of our infra was always something I worried about. RedPanda was able to handle both for us - cheaper than Kafka hosting vendors with significantly better performance. We were pretty early customers but was a huge win for us.
Same, small martech company. RedPanda works and the pricing allows actually using the service, plus the “source available” isn’t that limiting if you prefer to run your own stuff. Definitely glad to be off kafka prior to this news!
This. Using RP was like a breath of fresh air compared to the dread of Kafka (both local dev, and running a prod cluster)
Last i talked to RedPanda sales while working at a big name client they would not offer us anything below $100k per year for enterprise support etc (us running on our kubernetes). Looks like they added some "serverless" pricing thing now, but at the time Azure Eventhub (kakfa client compatible) was cheapest enterprisy option if I remember correctly.
Hmm. Strange. DM me details. Haven’t heard of anything like that.
We switched to Redpanda's BYOC product because we couldn't use Confluent Cloud (contractual reasons) and BYOC was a third the price of Confluent for Kubernetes while also being a managed service.
I've been pretty happy with RP performance/cost/functionality wise. It isn't Kafka though, it's a proprietary C++ rewrite that aims for 100% compatibility. This hasn't been an issue in the 2+ years since we migrated prod, but YMMV.
Maybe this whole thing it's because Snowflake acquired redpanda earlier this year: https://www.investors.com/news/technology/snowflake-stock-re...
Snowflake did not acquire RP after all.
Oh wow, my bad. Thanks for setting the record straight.
IBM have an absolutely stellar record of blowing acquisitions. The highly motivated newly acquired team will be in honeymoon phase for 3 months, and then it slowly dawns on them that they’ve joined an unbelievably rigid organization where things like customer satisfaction and great products don’t matter at all. Then they’ll be in shock and disbelief at the mind boggling Byzantine rules and internal systems they have to use, whose sole purpose is to make sure nobody does anything. Finally, the core IBM sales force will start to make demands on them and will short to ground any vestiges of energy, time, opportunity and motivation they might have left. The good team members will leave and join a former business partner, or decide to spend more time with the family. They’ll meet often at the beginning to relive the glory days of pre-acquisition and recount times where they went went above and beyond for that important early customer. But then these meetings will become fewer and fewer. Finally they’ll find a way of massaging their resumes to cast the last years as being “at the heart of AI infrastructure”.
Yeah, they acquired the company I worked at and left us alone for a year or two. Each year would get worse though, and each year we swapped nearly all bureaucratic things around. Always a different way to do performance reviews goals, etc.
A lot of the successful projects at the original company are now dead.
It's also weird being in IBM, because if your "contract" ends they put you on the bench. Then you basically have to job hunt within IBM, and if you can't find anything within a month or so you are out. It's super weird.
"It's also weird being in IBM, because if your "contract" ends they put you on the bench. Then you basically have to job hunt within IBM, and if you can't find anything within a month or so you are out. It's super weird."
This is standard operating procedure at most consulting/professional services firms.
Yes, the bench sounds great but it is incredibly nerve-wracking and I never liked that aspect of consulting at all. Better to just go to zero pay and be a free agent and if the company finds you another gig, great, but no promises either way.
I retired a couple of years ago at 54 and now spend my days feeding horses, mucking stalls and spreading the resulting manure (a task consulting prepared me for), but for about 24 of my 30 year career prior to retiring I worked for consulting companies and was lucky enough to never sit on the bench.
Also the CIA
Can you elaborate? That sounds interesting
John Kiriakou Described the process in a podcast, maybe the JRE.
Sounds similar to university applied research arms too.
GTRI locally hires a lot of non-students to work in its various labs. Its labs then pitch ideas to private companies and the DoD. Sometimes they're solicited directly if the lab is well-known and has a track record of delivering good research-oriented results. They research and build prototypes around various capabilities: robotics, avionics, even classified stuff.
They're always pitching, because contracts end or fall through, and that's the source of everyone's payroll. The labs can even be competitive with one another, and the individual researchers might spend time split between labs.
Academics as a service.
I don’t know how many contracts IBM deals with, but the concept of a bench is very common in government contracting. It helps retain talent in an environment that’s more volatile than a typical office. Good for the company to avoid brain drain and hiring overhead, good for the employee because it’s a built-in safety net. Much better than your contract ending and immediately being out of a job, especially in today’s market
I don't think they're objecting to the idea of a bench as an ultimate fallback; I think they're objecting to the idea that there isn't, during such "internal layoffs", a default automatic reassignment of all headcount to other teams. In such cases, you would only land on the bench if you refuse the automatic reassignment.
Longer Bench allowed only for consultant with security clearance as those are such a hard thing to come by. General govt work, they just let you go like in commercial sector.
Those are the positives. The downside is that the sales team presents you with really lousy contract opportunities and you are pressured to accept one knowing it is a crap assignment that isn't helping your career growth. And you can be stuck on one of those for years!
Surely by now everyone, including non-developers and non-software people, know exactly what IBM is, and you don't sell to IBM/join IBM without knowing exactly what's about to happen. No one joins IBM today and thinks there will be a huge focus on customer satisfaction or focus on great product design, it's all about squeezing maximum profit out of products until you need to discontinue them because you chased away all of the customers.
Not wrong but the image that people are painting in the comments is getting close to a caricature now.
The stuff IBM is doing on Quantum Computing is serious cutting-edge science and engineering for instance. The R&D they are doing on semiconductors on their 2nm and sub-2nm processes is also impressive and hardcore tech. They are doing a bunch of progress on post-quantum cryptography and homomorphic encryption. They've fallen behind now, but they were also quite strong on pre-LLM NLP for a couple of decades, it was not all fluff.
Yes they have an awful enterprise culture and they are not focused on building excellent products. But what they offer fits the needs of many organizations, and a lot of the things they are doing on R&D are no joke.
IBM shouldn't be thought of as a singular company. It is a conglomerate that does widely distinct things. Some enterprise boring profit squeezing, some shady scam "IBM blockchain on Z OS prevents viruses," some research/patent efforts elsewhere.
That said the GP is spot on for this sort of acquisition we know what will happen and has nothing to do with 2nm research division.
> IBM shouldn't be thought of as a singular company. It is a conglomerate that does widely distinct things.
Agreed, like others, small startup I was with, we were acquired years ago and first advice from IBMers who'd been acquired was that IBM is like 1000 smaller companies.
> IBM shouldn't be thought of as a singular company. It is a conglomerate that does widely distinct things.
This. Employees in the various sub-companies and divisions usually don't even know who most of the executive leadership is outside their little world. There is no cohesive "IBM" anymore, and I don't think there has been for a very long time.
> The R&D they are doing on semiconductors on their 2nm and sub-2nm processes is also impressive and hardcore tech.
But they don't have production. How can they develop successfully without running silicon in a fab?
They sell the patents to manufacturers. They are an IP shop.
> not focused on building excellent products
> a lot of the things they are doing on R&D are no joke
Sounds a _lot_ like Microsoft too...
Sounds a lot like every very large company, in broader terms
Doing research? Sure... Maybe. But it doesn't mean they are going to get anywhere to mass production... What was their last huge innovation? On top of that I won't give that much credit for what they do or say they do. Remember how much they lied about many of their "innovations" like IBM Watson?
Scanning Tunneling Microscope, high-temperature superconductivity - 2 Nobel prize right there.
Then laser eye surgery, magnetic storage, relational databases, UPC barcodes, DES, FFT, RISC, ...
yeah, almost nothing. /s
disclaimer: I work for IBM Research and I love every second of it.
People do not have anything to do with IBM Research. As long as IBM Consulting exists, your name will be seen as tarnished and not be taken seriously by most technology workers.
Just look at this comment section as Q.E.D.
I worked for a small company acquired by IBM in 2011. We had a good 5-6 year run where our product sales went up (largely because so many IBM people were selling it) and we were largely left alone. Once things slowed down a bit the IBM rot set in quick though. These days I think all that's left is a skeleton crew maintaining the obligatory long term contracts around the main product, every other part of the original company has been picked clean.
You can measure it by how many management steps you, as an employee of the recently acquired company are from the CEO in the hierarchy. As time goes on, this number tends to increase. It used to be easy to see this in Lotus Sametime or something that had some form of employee directory.
Fun fact: there's an IBM/Lotus Sametime theme song. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=daitUOzVpvc The lyrics rhyme "PC" with "easy."
That's awesome. Before ~2007 they allowed you to use open-source Pidgin to connect to the Domino servers. A friend of mine and I used it to make a bot: if you sametimed me, you got Zork.
It reminds me of another IBM IT rule: they wanted your chat history (and email) older than two years to be all deleted for legal liability reasons. It was important to save your sametime chat history (an XML file) and export your email periodically if you wanted to keep this stuff.
This was actually better than Slack in one way- you could grep the files for things, and not have to rely on search within the tool.
We (Pidgin) probably could have kept that code working if we had access to a server. But we didn't, and it bitrot, so we've since archived it to https://github.com/pidgin/retro-prpl/tree/main/sametime
>mind boggling Byzantine rules
Hint: by all means possible, make sure you are not the owner of (or manager of the person who owns) any assets beyond your personal laptop. If, for example, you end up being the owner of all the development and test servers of the original company, then it will become your responsibility to ensure that each OS (of each LPAR of each VM) is security compliant, is running the end-point asset manager, and has up to date OS patches, that the DASD is encrypted, and you must periodically show physical proof that the asset still exists and indicate where it's located- photos of assets tags or whatever. It will be your responsibility to dispose of the asset (with all associated paperwork) at the end of its life.
It helps if such machines are not actually on the 9. network, or are behind an internal firewall (then they don't care about the security compliance as much).
… isn’t this… what you should be doing already?
Probably, but now it's going to be formalized and will entail a lot of paperwork (manual entry on many very badly written JAVA-based CRUD applications). Sure, these things are all good ideas, but trust me, they have all been overthought. Do you want this to be your job?
> … isn’t this… what you should be doing already?
I still "own" (i.e. I'm the sole user with a root access and can install OS of my choosing) an old machine from the days before everything moved to a cloud and guess no one from IT has got to decommission it yet. I'm have no idea where it is located (besides knowing which office it is assigned to), never saw it, no way in hell am going to attach any tags and waste my time to install enterprise spyware on it or manually encrypt it's data. Do engineers do that for development servers on your job? If yes, name and shame!
I'm with a company that was acquired by IBM ~2.5 years ago. The internal systems are definitely rough, but for the most part it's business as usual.
I've heard chatter from our engineering leadership that IBM is trying to push some silly initiatives, but we've been able to prioritize the right work so far.
I also get more equity (one time award + employee stock purchase plan) than I did previously, and with how IBM stock has been performing lately this has been a net positive for me.
FWIW I have heard that IBM used to force their management style on acquisitions in years past, so perhaps this is a fairly recent shift towards a less hands-on approach.
> FWIW I have heard that IBM used to force their management style on acquisitions in years past
Definitely wasn't like that for Red Hat. We had a CFO with an IBM past which was a really nice guy and never ever felt like he was parachutes from IBM.
Now after 6 years legal, HR and finance will move to IBM starting next January; but my perspective from engineering is that after the acquisition it's been and remains business as usual.
I have no idea how it was for Hashicorp.
Haven't heard a damn thing about "RedHat" in years, though. It's dead as far as Linux distros go. I'm sure it's used in the IBM-o-sphere, but I'm just not around that at all.
Well I am not sure what other commercial distros you consider to be alive, but Red Hat makes Canonical's yearly revenue in a couple weeks.
Outside IBM land, Meta runs on a CentOS Stream fork.
Yep, this is a classic acquisition story. You go from a hungry company out there to fight to succeed and join a big corp where most projects are just endless series of meetings people have about what they want to do without any real timeline or immediate plan to start.
The worst is when your sales team (and all of its super valuable institutional knowledge of your specific market) are cut, and all your management is laid off so that the new corp's managers (who have embedded themselves into the corporate bureaucracy like a trichinosis worm) can treat all your teams as free headcount.
Soon, your company, which was acquired for growth, can't do anything and turns into an albatross around the new corp's neck. So the layoffs begin.
A lot of people seem to voice a disdain for Notes but I actually liked it for some reason.
In a lot of ways Notes was ahead of its time. You could easily have encrypted replicated databases with offline work, which was very handy for traveling users back before high bandwidth connections were widely available, and you could build quite complex apps on top of those databases.
I saw at least one large company that migrated from Notes to exchange and they got the email/calendaring bit done quite easily and were still running notes servers for line of business applications years later.
Notes was pretty decent as a groupware/ nosql platform. Lotus script wasn’t great. I might be biased because my first CS job was to write applications with it.
It felt like they basically tacked on the email functionality to to Notes to sell it, but it always seemed kinda ok to me.
That's because your comment is only 3 levels deep.
Let's revisit this when it's Reply to Reply to Reply to Reply :)
Hasn't Notes been sluffed off to HCL?
Not OP, they have not tried to sell it to us... yet at least. They are still trying to convince us that MyCloud is a amazing product.
The worst ever product: IBM FileNet! What an awful product. An acquisition, btw.
In defense of Byzantines. Their rules and amazing diplomatic prowess is what let them be an empire for so long. The negative connotations to Byzantine comes from the negative perception the west had of them. Byzantines were very practical in regards to who they allied with.
I learned more here and I'm not sure I agree with your comment fully.
https://www.reddit.com/r/etymology/comments/8shw5r/what_is_t...
The claims about extreme complexity of the Late Roman/Byzantine state came into the popular imagination by Enlightenment and other Western thinkers who were deeply biased against the late Romans due to a long history of cultural conflict. The OP is completely correct here, the reddit comment is an extremely incomplete story. It notes that the Roman state was more complex than other Medieval states (correct), but to say that it was "too" complex is a culturally based judgment, not a fact. The origin of the negative cultural judgment about that complexity waen't coming from the Romans, they were coming from the Franks, Venetians, and later Western Europeans who in large part were repeating the old prejudices going back to the schism, but also justifying their own conquest and abuses of of the Roman people.
I'm sure the children who watched their parents get murdered before they themselves were taken into slavery during the fall of Constantinople appreciated those rules and the alliances they supported.
No empire lasts forever. Your sentence could apply to a lot of times and places in the pre-modern era
IBM is designed to milk every last bit of money from their clients. So they need to add new products every now and then to add new money flows.
I hope Hashicorp survives. A few higher ups I’ve talked to there made it seem like IBM wants to learn from them, not force their old ways onto Hashicorp. We’ll see. That one is still pretty new.
They said the same thing about Red Hat. The fact that Whitehurst resigned from IBM should tell you something.
I'm pretty sure Jim had aspirations of being IBM CEO but they picked Arvind instead.
exactly. standard move when you aren't going to get a second shot.
They tell that to every company they buy
HCP wasn't any prize when they got bought, though, right? HashiCorp Cloud was more like a fog in terms of growth. A bunch of products got lost a long the way (Boundary? Waypoint?) HCP lost 50% of its IPO value by the time it was bought. Yes, I know IPO's are high and always go down, but it went from around a $14bn valuation to being bought for something like $6.5bn.
Not to mention HashiCorp bled talent before the acquisition was even announced (BUSL started it) and it didn’t really stop as far as I’m aware.
I never quite figured out why IBM even bought them. Terraform? Wasn’t there an open source clone by that point?
terraform and vault are both sticky products
Judging from what my contacts say, I would not hold my breath. HCP is going to get smashed by bureaucracy and bigcorp bs just like all other IBM acquisitions. All you have to do to verify this is look at linkedin and track the departures of the the acquired staff.
Not to be cynical but that's said a lot in acquisitions by bigger companies to motivate some people to stay, but just doesn't seem to happen.
And even if there is a 20% of executives actually believe in "We should learn from HashiCorp", usually not even that is enough to counter-act the default mode of operation which is squeezing customers. GLHF to remaining HashiCorp believers, but personally I'd try to find alternatives for the software you use from them if you haven't already.
Executives will say anything to boost the next quarter results. After that they get rebooted and start again, and nothing they said before counts for anything.
And in two years, the acquired management team all leaves like clockwork because they got their retention bonus.
Usually the internal stakeholder that made the case to acquire the business leaves/gets promoted and new managers come in and start the assimilation process.
For every incredible journey there is an equal and opposite lesson to be learned
My friends at RedHat were embracing similar forms of copium. By now they've all either moved on or are actively hand sitting while exploring options.
I've heard IBM is really just an external government agency. If you look at it through the lens of being acquired by a government bureaucracy, then your explanation makes perfect sense. IBM is too entrenched to fail and too poorly run to be acquired.
> They’ll meet often at the beginning to relive the glory days of pre-acquisition and recount times where they went went above and beyond for that important early customer.
Yeesh. Which level of hell is that?
There were a series of Dilbert comics that spoke to this.
Dilbert’s company buys an “artsy” startup (represented by a chap with a goatee and a ponytail).
Dilbert comments something like “We get your energy and skill, and we provide … an endless supply of 3-ring binders.”
To which the chap replies “I hear that if your name goes into a binder, you lose your soul.”
Pretty bleak, and describes my experience to a T (although involving other companies). Has there ever been an example where a company has been acquired and culture/morale/conditions have actually improved rather than dissolved?
I wouldn't describe it as improved necessarily, but successfully integrated. This happened many times - youtube by google for example. Facebook acquisitions are pretty successful too (not looking if it was good for humanity, just from business perspective).
Some companies like Amazon buy companies and let them run almost independently - IMDB for example, Zappos, Twitch, Whole Foods, Zoox, Audible.
Android was also an acquistion by Google, run relatively separately, and it grew into something huge
Uh weird that I got downvotes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Android_(operating_system)#His...
Android Inc. was founded in Palo Alto, California, in October 2003 by Andy Rubin and Chris White
Google acquired the company in July of [2005] for at least $50 million
It was ad-supported of course, but it's definitely not similar to IBM acquisitions
The Apple acquisition of NeXT has (only half-jokingly) been described as NeXT buying Apple with Apple's money. That's obviously an exceptionally rare case.
I think I’ve seen people on here describe Google’s acquisition of DoubleClick in similar terms—- or at least in the sense that DC’s culture infected & somewhat replaced Google culture. I may be misremembering though.
I had friends that worked at a high-profile IBM acquisition a decade ago and this is exactly what happened.
That's a very cynical take. Unfortunately likely correct.
It's a fact that a publicly traded company is beholden to Wall Street and any time such a company would use their earnings for R&D the P/E and margins go down (i.e. spending more money to earn the same) and this is considered a negative signal at Wall Street and the company gets punished in the market.
So the only way a company can spend their earnings is to pay dividends or buy assets such as other companies, which then must be squeezed for margins.
More here:
https://www.cringely.com/2015/06/03/autodesks-john-walker-ex...
This feels like the kind of post you can only write with sombre experience.
IBM isn’t really a tech company anymore. More of a legal trolling company that cosplays as tech.
They seem to primarily benefit from kickbacks in the form of both leasing and technical contracts for things like opening offices in a location for tax benefits or to promote local economy.
Then they see how far they can cut back their end of the contract after the first few months (e.g. Maybe we agreed to have 500 employees in an office, but since nobody is allowed in, we think we can get away with 100 employees.) Then this turns into trolling about how the contract never defines what in office means so can we offshore… Too much undefined confusion, so I guess we get to break the contract but keep what the mayor paid us… Then they just shut down the office and move on to the next location.
It seems like the local government must be in on these schemes for leasing. Otherwise this wouldn’t be going on for decades as it has been.
The other part of business, technical contracts, is similar except instead of leasing it’s providing some sort of infrastructure coverage for something big. It starts off with good faith fulfilling the contract. Then a few months later it’s like well we have a US military contract that demands US employees but US employees are too expensive. What if we offshore but all the traffic is technically going through a single US employee’s computer which is what the contract technically demands.
Then it turns into well we have offshore people working on this anyway, why not just give them direct access and we’ll have a US person overseeing them. Lay everyone else off.
Then they see how long they can get away with this until someone gets mad. Then they take one step back to see how close to the technical contract they can get while threatening to abandon the whole thing at the same time.
Along with this sort of atmosphere and attitude for the law, it seems we see them constantly doing everything possible to constantly fire old people or anyone else that has legally protected status. So you’ll get statistical analytics on ways to fire protected people based around the constant performance reviews with statistics being used to see how close groups of protected people can be removed without statistically breaking the law. Whatever that algorithm is.
That plays into just straight up cutting people, but it also goes into a lot of other subsystems of skirting the law, like if old people can’t relocate as easily then hopping offices and forcing people to relocate 5000 miles is a way they can be eliminated. Part of this might be moving people onto new teams and then saying that team has to be in office for some made up reason, and then firing them for not relocating or using some made up metric like badging timestamps to get them, or some other technicality like leaving for lunch 5 minutes early despite being a salaried employee which is reported as hourly because of tax trolling.
I don’t know how IBM still exists because from my perspective it’s pretty clear they’re breaking or at best on razor thin gray line on ice on just about every possible law you could break.
This is what is happening with red hat also?
I worked for IBM Cloud about 6+ years ago. While there, we had to connect to a Softlayer VPN to get into our Jira instance. My VPN account and Jira account never got provisioned so I couldn't connect nor see the Jira board. My team-mates couldn't even assign a ticket to me b/c of this. They would just put my initial's in the ticket summary and send me a slack of the details.
It was right before I left that we got our own Jira instance. This was all around the time of the Red Hat acquisition. I remember the announcement b/c we used SuSE for everything IIRC.
Why didn't you ask to get the accounts provisioned?
I work for a company that has so much bureaucracy and silos that teams maintain wiki pages with links and routing on how to create tickets for specific tasks and wether there is a specific mandatory information needed in order to not have your ticket just closed as incomplete without an explanation.
Sometimes a team unilaterally decide to change the process, info is sent to a random number of mailbox/managers who may fail to pass the info. Some entire teams just put themselves in away status 24/7 and do not respond to direct messages.
So yes I can believe his story. Sometimes in these kind of companies you just don't know who and how to ask for something and you just hope someone knows someone who might know.
What's the largest company you've worked for? A lot of big, older companies, are just so messed up that its just not worth it. How do you do this? Well you have to find the specific form, or specific person who does the thing, who is that? no one knows. So that provisioning of a vpn and getting in jira might literally be like a month of work.
I've worked for S&P Global, so pretty large. If you don't have an account that you need, then you need to be tenacious, which of course is super annoying. If you don't have an account on a system you should, it's 100% on you after a while.
On consulting engagements, 0% of the time are Jira and git provisioned correctly for an outside consultant. I used to be appalled at being paid for two or three days of waiting for the IT guy to fix this. Now I use the time to find cleaning supplies and deep clean my cubicle and chair. People do look at me funny, but I feel better not just sitting there reading.
I did, multiple times. I was a contractor. I was the only one on my team of contractors whose account was screwed up. There seemed to be no priority to do anything there. One of many many reasons I left when I could.
I imagine that's done via JIRA tcket/IT before onboarding.
So if they somehow can get past initial device deployment/user account logon, and get other resources IE; slack....well that speaks to how difficult/pointless it would be to get proper VPN/Jira access.
I believe it was an ancient ServiceNow incantation that all the current employees couldn't seem to hunt down.
You'd have to be able to find the person to do that first hehe!
I had a similar thing happen to me with a huge company as a contractor. I couldn't work for 3 weeks due to a combination of login issues and permissions settings. Couldn't file a ticket and no one was really sure who to call/ask. Finally a director caught wind of it and knew who to talk to.
Seems like a great day for Pulsar / StreamNative and Redpanda who are going to get a lot of new customers in the coming years.
When looking for alternatives to Kafka these are the most promising options I found, not counting RabbitMQ which needs no introduction.
Pulsar seems to be 'kafka done better'. The version of Kafka that Confluent used internally (Kora) seems closer to Pular as well. Pulsar has a lot of features that Kafka doesn't have, like per-message acknowledgement, similar to RabbitMQ. And it has protocol support for RabbitMQ and Kafka, so can be a drop-in replacement.
Redpanda seems like a great re-implementation of Kafka.
I'm hoping this boosts Pulsar's status and helps get some traction for StreamNative. It seems like the best technical solution for events and messaging. It just needs a bit more market adoption to make an easier choice for enterprise, in my opinion. This might be that moment.
https://streamnative.io/
*(yes I know about NATS)
It's like how lots of species evolve into crabs, or crab like things. Instead of dying out evolutionarily, failed giants like IBM evolve into Computer Associates.
Confluent had great stuff but their prices were crazy. When we got a quote from them, it was 20x more than what we could run on our own. We got quoted something like ~500k/year and my math on running it on AWS came around 25k for the same sized cluster via Strimzi operator on dedicated K8s nodes. We could hire a dedicated 3 person team to manage the cluster for the same price lol.
Now AWS is eating Confluent's lunch with it's managed Kafka. AWS MSK is still a little rough like all AWS services but it's still cheaper and a no-brainer if you are already on AWS.
I have similar stories, I showed the Confluent consultants a projection of their Kafka quote vs Kinesis and it was like 10x, even they were confused. The ingress/egress costs are insane. I think they just do very deep discounts to certain customers. The product is good but if you pay full ticket it probably doesn't make sense.
Kafka is already past it's prime time. Time for new solutions for the oldest problem - sending a message.
I'm still convinced the vast majority of kafka implementations could be replaced with `SELECT * FROM mytable ORDER BY timestamp ASC`
pull vs push. Plus if you start storing the last timestamp so you only select the delta and if you start sharding your db and dealing with complexities of having different time on different tables/replication issues it quickly becomes evident that Kafka is better in this regard.
But yeah, for a lot of implementations you don't need streaming. But for pull based apps you design your architecture differently, some things are a lot easier than it is with DB, some things are harder.
Funny you mention that, because Kafka consumers actually pull messages.
What is the reason for using Kafka then, sorry if I'm missing something fundamental.
A Kafka consumer does a lot of work coordinating distributed clients in a group, managing the current offset, balancing the readers across partitions, etc which is native broker functionality. Saying you can replace it all with a simple JDBC client or something isn't true (if you need that stuff!)
Not by busy waiting in a loop on a database query though.
Sure, if you're working on a small homelab with minimal to no processing volume.
The second you approach any kind of scale, this falls apart and/or you end up with a more expensive and worse version of Kafka.
I think there is a wide spectrum between small-homelab and google scale.
I was surprised how far sqlite goes with some sharding on modern SSDs for those in-between scale services/saas
What you're doing is fine for a homelab, or learning. But barring any very specific reason other than just not liking Kafka, its bad. The second that pattern needs to be fanned out to support even 50+ producers/consumers, the overhead and complexity needed to manage already-solved problems becomes a very bad design choice.
Kafka already solves this problem and gives me message durability, near infinite scale out, sharding, delivery guarantees, etc out of the box. I do not care to develop, reshard databases or production-alize this myself.
Some people don't and won't need 50+ producers/consumers for a long while, if ever. Rewriting the code at that point may be less costly than operating Kafka in the interim. Kafka is also has a higher potential for failure than sqlite.
Ofc, and not everybody needs or cares for all the features Kafka has. Then use another known and tested messaging system. Use NATS or ZMQ. Or any cloud native pubsub system
My main point is, I have zero interest in creating novel solutions to a solved problem. It just artificially increases the complexity of my work and the learning curve for contributors.
Okay, then those people don’t have to use Kafka. What is your point?
I was responding to someone who was responding to someone that wasn't using Kafka telling them to use Kafka. What's yours?
sqlite can do 40,000 transactions per second, that's going to be a lot more than 'homelab' (home lab).
Not everything needs to be big and complicated.
"Any kind of scale" No, there's a long way of better and more straightforward solutions than the simple SELECT
(SELECT * from EVENTS where TIMESTAMP > LAST_TS LIMIT 50) for example
Yes but try putting that on your CV.
That is exactly what I am doing with sqlite.
Have a table level seqno as monotonically increasing number stamped for every mutation. When a subscriber connects it asks for rows > Subscriber's seqno-last-handled.
It's not for sending a message like a queue it's an event log.
Nothing wrong with Kafka. Time to build better abstractions on top of Kafka.
Erlang/OTP!
ATProto? (aka AT protocol, ATP, Atmosphere...)
What are the alternatives?
RedPanda, Iggy, Pulsar, Fluvio, NATS, etc.
wait what do you mean? what's wrong with kafka?
ibm also acquired datastax (managed pulsar) this year. building on top of these specialized managed service providers is becoming increasingly risky. at this point i'd rather use one of the kneecapped cloud provider offerings if possible (azure event hubs / aws msk / etc.) than risk being extorted in a few years as the result of some acquisition. at least you can work around the limitations..
anyone have an idea on how streamnative is doing? we're considering them for managed pulsar and unfortunately nobody else is in the game
> anyone have an idea on how streamnative is doing?
we keep pushing Pulsar and moving things - https://streamnative.io/blog/ursa-wins-vldb-2025-best-indust...
And two years prior IBM acquired Ahana (PrestoDB SaaS). Totally agree that businesses need to much more carefully assess the risks of moving to these hosted open source platforms. Reminds me of when over a decade ago companies moved to Snowflake for their DWs because "our Teradata costs are out of control".
This is great news. Kafka (the messaging/streaming platform) has finally found its natural home.
IBM is buying market share, not a surprise; at least one telecom has all their Kafka stuff on the Confluent cloud, and there must be 1000s of such customers.
At least you can now safely buy into Kafka, as nobody ever got fired for buying IBM.
This isn't the old times, you can expect the opposite outcome these days.
OP IMHO was obviously being sarcastic.
Fair.
I know companies who would certainly have fired people for buying IBM, if they could have gone back in time to do so.
The only way (95%+) companies selling to enterprises survive are if they get bought by a bigger platform and the sales force of the bigger platform just has to sell an extra line item. If you want to make money, track companies that have sales and marketing expenses same order / same / higher than revenue and then create a synthetic index of these companies (they need to have sold something like $1BN in license in aggregate over time - maintenance stream and you confirm that the pig can be sold somehow) . most will be eventually sold at a premium to their traded price.
11 billion invested in multiple hardware developments including moonshots would have been more sensible that for Kafka operator (remember MQSeries/MQ btw)
IBM was teabagging the Hasicorp booth at re:Invent with conspicuously old hardware set out like a museum piece. Ugh.
Do you mean sandbagging?
What does this mean?
I read it as purposely making the booth unattractive or bland? not sure either haha
That's good, that's good!
A nod's as good as a wink to a blind bat!
Nudge, nudge, know what I mean?
I have thought quite a bit today about the news from Confluent and IBM. I have friends and colleagues at both companies. When I was an undergrad at Carnegie Mellon University in the 1980s I used to wear a big brown and tan IBM button that said "THINK."
And here is a picture of Ben Lorica 罗瑞卡 interviewing Jay Kreps and other industry leaders at The Hive back on the evening of 25 February 2015. I believe they were talking about strategies for implementing Lambda Architecture.
All of which is to say: I have been a big fan of both companies for a long, long time. While today I am at employed at Redpanda Data, a direct competitor of Confluent, I hope to set aside any "team"-based bias to provide a sober and honest appraisal.
First, IBM has been shrinking. They were at 345,000 employees as of their 2020 Annual Report. But the COVID-19 pandemic was only one of many setbacks the company faced when Arvind Krishna took the helm as CEO. By December 2024 the employee base shrank to 270,000 — a drop of nearly 22%.
IBM revenue in 2020: $73.6B.
IBM revenue in 2024: $62.75B — a less-precipitous drop of 15%.
Revenue per employee over that period rose from $213k to $232k.
Confluent on its own? $400k.
And to compare: Amazon earns $580k per employee. Microsoft generates over $1M per. Nvidia? $4M-$5M.
And now, in November, they announced thousands of more layoffs. No one seems safe, regardless of job title. Those cut include positions in "artificial intelligence, marketing, software engineering and cloud technology."
Next, IBM has had a mixed record as a steward of acquisitions. Red Hat has doubled in revenues since their 2019 acquisition. For a while its headcount continued to grow, as much as 19,000 by 2023. But then it was forced into layoffs by parent IBM in April of that year, and then each year since, even while it remains one of the highest margin businesses in their portfolio.
SoftLayer — "IBM Cloud Classic" — also suffered significant layoffs in early 2025, with offshoring sending jobs to India.
DataStax had layoffs in 2023-2024, even before its acquisition was announced. Maybe they were "trimming the fat" to get into a shape to be acquired.
As a person with a long career in marketing, I know that many of the first roles to be jettisoned at a newly-acquired company tend to be in go-to-market organizations. Sales, Marketing, Developer Relations, Documentation, Training, Community, Customer Service. These tend to be seen as "nice to haves" by upper management. But their loss guts organizations and hollows out user-facing teams and open source communities.
My hope is that Confluent is spared as much of the pain and turmoil as possible. That, like Red Hat, it is run autonomously as much as possible.
[Crossposted from LinkedIn here, where you can see the photo mentioned: https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7404052...]
A note on your "IBM has been shrinking" take: IBM spun out Kyndryl in 2021, including 90,000 employees [0]. That leaves the remaining company with 255,000 employees after the spin-off in 2021, which means it has actually grown by 15,000 people to reach the 270,000 in 2024.
The spin-off also explains the drop in revenue. In 2021, the first results reported excluding Kyndryl, IBM had revenues of $57.4B [1]. Since 2021, revenue grew by ~9% to reach $62.75B in 2024.
[0] https://www.kyndryl.com/us/en/about-us/news/2021/11/2021-11-... [1] https://newsroom.ibm.com/2022-1-24-IBM-RELEASES-FOURTH-QUART...
Fair. A good callout. And maybe the right move. However, a healthy IBM would not have needed to calve off its entire Global Technology Services business.
Let the Bluewashing begin. Everything will be WebSphere-first and then WebSphere-only.
If Apache Foundation is where open source projects go to die (a bit unfair though), IBM is the equivalent for for-profit companies.
If Apache Foundation is where open source projects go to die ...
I can't think of a better place for longevity of open source projects than Apache (maybe I'm out of the loop?).
Compare it to the Linux Foundation where everything is a single commercial vendor sponsored project. At lease Apache requires independent governance and a diverse ecosystem before the project graduates.
Am I missing something with the Apache Foundation?
No, you're right. That's why I said it's a bit unfair to say that. But that's the meme.
How is this different from Apache Qpid or RabbitMQ or IBM MQ (at least the first and third of those is already owned by IBM!)
If you're serious, Kafka is a topic-centric message bus. Everything is a topic, not a queue, and its internals are optimized to achieve very quick at-least-once delivery.
If you use Kafka as a queue, then no difference. (Load balance a message between consumers)
But you can also use Kafka as pub-sub system (duplicate messages to each subscribers)
Messages are not deleted after consumption (configurable)
Adjacent space, but can't help but wonder why Confluent did so much better than MapR
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20053188 and https://www.computerweekly.com/news/252468013/MapR-collapse-... have some context on MapR's demise.
IMO they were simultaneously worse situated for near-real-time stream processing and for S3-esque cloud storage, areas Kafka and Confluent excelled.
previously...
https://www.confluent.io/blog/confluent-acquires-warpstream/
Warpstream (by Confluent (an IBM company))
good for the founding team! Kafka is an enterprise bloat. most of the queueing solutions could be built with something much simpler
is it good or bad for confluent employees?
IBM paid a ~30% premium on the current stock price, so all shareholders (I imagine employees own a bunch of shares) will get a decent chunk of cash.
Some redundant departments (HR, finance, accounting and the like) will be downsized after the acquisition.
Engineering and product will be unaffected in the short term, but in a year or two the IBM culture will start to seep in, and that would be a good time for tenured employees to start planning their exits. That's also when lock-up agreements will expire and the existing leadership of Confluent will depart and be replaced by IBM execs.
And sales teams will likely be forced to cross-sell IBM Products.
It depends a lot on which org they go into, and the motivations of the P&L owner of that division.
IBM is a really big and diverse company, in a way fundamentally different from most other big tech. In a sense, it is completely incoherent to refer to them as a singular entity.
My opinions are my own. I worked at IBM like a decade ago in a role where I could see the radically different motivations of divisions.
From experience, and to slightly refute the sibling replied, good for the confluent peeps that get flagged as being essential to the acquisition, they'll get a retention bonus of 100-300% of base pay spread over three years. The cutting of staff will begin likely in the 3-5 year time frame.
IPO'd at 45, high of 90ish, sold at 30. It depends on the strike price for employees, but its not clear if its universally a good outcome.
Both.
IBM will likely give Confluent employees a large pay package, and then let them go after the merger.
They will get some money in the short term, but they better start looking for another job
edit: btw, it's typical for any acquisition/merger
Some market reaction
Confluent stock soars 29% as IBM announces $11B acquisition deal
https://www.cnbc.com/2025/12/08/ibm-confluent-deal-data.html
This is so funny. Now CNBC says "...The addition of Confluence will strengthen IBM’s artificial intelligence portfolio..."
Since when is streaming event logs AI? Am I taking crazy pills?
Near-Real-time inference is a hot thing these days with Apache Flink, which is commercially supported by Confluent (not Confluence)
Haven’t got the memo? Everything computing is AI now. If you want to sell it, that is.
the price sounds a little bit high from a technical perspective
And the enshittification treadmill continues. Great time to be a kafka alternative.
I'll start.
https://github.com/tansu-io/tansu
Redpanda has been a superior wire-compatible alternative to Kafka for years.
https://www.redpanda.com/compare/redpanda-vs-kafka
Until Redpanda becomes enshittified.
Sigh.
https://pulsar.apache.org/
https://nats.io
Not a drop in replacement, but worth looking at.
https://jepsen.io/analyses/nats-2.12.1
Apache Iggy seems like a project with a lot of momentum: https://github.com/apache/iggy
Do any of these alternatives make it easy to transition a system that is using Kafka Connectors and Avro?
Pulsar supports the kafka protocol, so anything that works with Kafka should just work with Pulsar.
https://docs.streamnative.io/cloud/build/kafka-clients/kafka...
`SELECT * FROM mytable ORDER BY timestamp ASC`
Ah yes, and every consumer should just do this in a while (true) loop as producers write to it. Very efficient and simple with no possibility of lock contention or hot spots. Genius, really.
I've implemented a distributed worker system on top of this paradigm.
I used ZMQ to connect nodes and the worker nodes would connect to an indexer/coordinator node that effectively did a `SELECT FROM ORDER BY ASC`.
It's easier than you may think and the bits here ended up with probably < 1000 SLOC all told.
Effectively a distributed event loop with the events queued up via a simple SQL query.Dead simple design, extremely robust, very high throughput, very easy to scale workers both horizontally (more nodes) and vertically (more threads). ZMQ made it easy to connect the remote threads to the centralized coordinator. It was effectively "self balancing" because the workers would only re-queue their thread once it finished work. Very easy to manage, but did not have hot failovers since we kept the materialized, "2D" work queue in memory. Though very rarely did we have issues with this.
Kafka is really not intended to improve on this. Instead, it's intended for very high-volume ETL processing, where a classical message queue delivering records would spend too much time on locking. Kafka is hot-rodding the message queue design and removing guard rails to get more messages thru faster.
Generally I say, "Message queues are for tasks, Kafka is for data." But in the latter case, if your data volume is not huge, a message queue for async ETL will do just fine and give better guarantees as FIFO goes.
In essence, Kafka is a very specialized version of much more general-purpose message queues, which should be your default starting point. It's similar to replacing a SQL RDBMS with some kind of special NoSQL system - if you need it, okay, but otherwise the general-purpose default is usually the better option.
Of course this is not the same as Kafka, but the comment I'm replying to:
Seemed to imply that it's not possible to build a high performance pub/sub system using a simple SQL select. I do not think that is true and it is in fact fairly easy to build a high performance pub/sub system with a simple SQL select. Clearly, this design as proposed is not the same as Kafka.No, I implied that implementing pub/sub with just a select statement is silly because it is. Your implementation accounts for the downfalls of this approach with smart design using a message queue and intelligent locking semantics. Parent of my comment was glib and included none of this.
Yeah, but that's like doing actual engineering. Instead you should just point to Kafka and say that it's going to make your horrible architecture scale magically. That's how the pros do it.
Kafka isn't magic, but it's close. If a single-node solution like an SQL database can handle your load then why shouldn't you stick with SQL? Kafka is not for you. Kafka is for workloads that would DDoS Postgres.
It's one of my favorite patterns, because it's the highest-impact, lowest-hanging fruit to fix in many systems that have hit serious scaling bottlenecks.
wait what's wrong with kafka?
I was in the midst of writing a snarky reply and then realized my actual issue with Kafka is that people reach for it way too often and use it in ways that don't really make sense.
Kind of like how people use docker for evrything, when what you really should be doing is learn how to package software.
Ops here, Docker is packaging software.
Agree on the Kafka thing though. I've seen so many devs trip over Kafka topics, partitions and offsets when their throughput is low enough that RabbitMQ would do fine.
No, docker is a software for packaging systems.
The people distributing software should shut them damn up about how the rest of the system it runs in is configured. (But not you, your job is packaging full systems.)
That said, it seems to me that this is becoming less of a problem.
Nothing inherently wrong with the core product IMHO. The issue is more with Confluent, who have been constantly swinging from hot buzzword to hot buzzword for the last few years in search of growth. Confluent cloud is very expensive, and you still have to deal with a surprising amount of scaling headaches. I have people I consider friends that work there, so I don't want to go too deep into their various missteps, but the Kafka ecosystem has been largely stagnant outside of getting rid of Zookeeper and simplifying operations/deployment. There have been some decent quality of life fixes, but the platform is very expensive, yet if you are really all-in on Kafka, you would be insane to not get support from Confluent- it can break in surprising ways.
So you are stuck with some really terrible tradeoffs- Go with Confluent Cloud, pay a fortune, and still likely have some issues to deal with. Or you could go with Confluent Platform, still have to pay people to operate it, while Confluent the company focuses most of their attention on Cloud and still charges you a fortune. Or you could just go completely OS and forgo anything Confluent and risk being really up the river when something inevitably breaks, or you have to learn the hard way that librdkafka has poor support for a lot of the shiny features discussed in the release notes.
Redpanda has surpassed them from a technical quality perspective, but Kafka has them beat on the ecosystem and the sheer inertia of moving from one platform to another. Kafka for example was built in a time of spinning rust hard disks, and expects to be run on general purpose compute nodes, where Redpanda will actually look at your hardware and optimize the number of threads its spawns for the box it is on- assuming it is going to be the only real app running there, which is true for anything but a toy deployment.
This is my experience from running platform teams and being head of messaging at multiple companies.
What's wrong with kafka or what WILL BE wrong with kafka?
So much that we presume in the modern cloud wasn't a given when Apache Kafka was first released in 2011.
kevstev wrote just above about Kafka being written to run on spinning disks (HDDs), while Redpanda was written to take advantage of the latest hardware (local NVMe SSDs). He has some great insights.
As well, Apache Kafka was written in Java, back in an era when you were weren't quite sure what operating system you might be running on. For example, when Azure first launched they had a Windows NT-based system called Windows Azure. Most everyone else had already decided to roll Linux. Microsoft refused to budge on Linux until 2014, and didn't release its own Azure Linux until 2020.
Once everyone decided to roll Linux, the "write once run everywhere" promise of Java was obviated. But because you were still locked into a Java Virtual Machine (JVM) your application couldn't optimize itself to the underlying hardware and operating system you were running on.
Redpanda, for example, is written in C++ on top of the Seastar framework (seastar.io). The same framework at the heart of ScyllaDB. This engine is a thread-per-core shared-nothing architecture that allows Redpanda to optimize performance for hardware utilization in ways that a Java app can only dream of. CPU utilization, memory usage, IO throughput. It's all just better performance on Redpanda.
It means that you're actually getting better utility out of the servers you deploy. Less wasted / fallow CPU cycles — so better price-performance. Faster writes. Lower p99 latencies. It's just... better.
Now, I am biased. I work at Redpanda now. But I've been a big fan of Kafka since 2015. I am still bullish on data streaming. I just think that Apache Kafka, as a Java-based platform, needs some serious rearchitecture,
Even Confluent doesn't use vanilla Kafka. They rewrote their own engine, Kora. They claim it is 10x faster. Or 30x faster. Depending on what you're measuring.
1. https://www.confluent.io/confluent-cloud/kora/
2. https://www.confluent.io/blog/10x-apache-kafka-elasticity/
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enshittification is helpful if you arent aware of how late stage capitalism works
Late stage of what?
Another genius move from International Business Machines!
How is IBM still alive? Or is it trying to prove the same
Could anyone please explain what IBM is even doing these days? Where revenue is coming from?
it's a public company, read the quarterly reports