←back to thread

IBM to acquire Confluent

(www.confluent.io)
443 points abd12 | 1 comments | | HN request time: 0s | 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 #
Lu2025 ◴[] 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 #
selcuka ◴[] No.46199377[source]
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.

replies(2): >>46201189 #>>46203315 #
1. raverbashing ◴[] No.46203315[source]
It's not stupid when you can bill for $1Mi instead of $100k ;)