←back to thread

IBM to acquire Confluent

(www.confluent.io)
443 points abd12 | 2 comments | | HN request time: 0.019s | source
Show context
notepad0x90 ◴[] No.46192971[source]
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.

replies(20): >>46193157 #>>46193166 #>>46193230 #>>46193283 #>>46193377 #>>46193425 #>>46193477 #>>46193667 #>>46194024 #>>46195332 #>>46197840 #>>46197983 #>>46198495 #>>46198575 #>>46199548 #>>46199797 #>>46200151 #>>46200251 #>>46201636 #>>46203121 #
photon_lines ◴[] No.46193230[source]
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...

replies(4): >>46193670 #>>46195777 #>>46198385 #>>46201659 #
1. johnnyanmac ◴[] No.46198385[source]
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.
replies(1): >>46201060 #
2. fruitplants ◴[] No.46201060[source]
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.