←back to thread

IBM to acquire Confluent

(www.confluent.io)
443 points abd12 | 3 comments | 08 Dec 25 13:43 UTC | HN request time: 1.418s | source
Show context
notepad0x90 ◴[08 Dec 25 15:01 UTC] 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 #
Lu2025 ◴[08 Dec 25 21:23 UTC] No.46197840[source]▶
> 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.

replies(10): >>46198066 #>>46198189 #>>46198236 #>>46198279 #>>46198534 #>>46199377 #>>46199737 #>>46199932 #>>46200011 #>>46200871 #
1. victords ◴[09 Dec 25 00:28 UTC] No.46199737[source]▶
The way you put it, looks like IBM is a pretty good place to work at
replies(2): >>46199864 #>>46200411 #
2. DrewADesign ◴[09 Dec 25 00:43 UTC] No.46199864[source]▶
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.

3. dwaltrip ◴[09 Dec 25 01:57 UTC] No.46200411[source]▶
Sounds miserable if you like solving real problems.