![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
historical influence on business and computing -- punched cards and US census -- Selectric typewriter -- IBM-PC 5150 1981 'revolution' -- IBM mainframes -- IBM minicomputers -- OS/2 -- "THINK" -- mainframe -- Fred Brooks classic The Mythical Man-Month about OS/360 -- Winchester disk technology -- legal precedents(?): unbundling -- office automation -- research contributions -- Atomic force microscope -- Scanning electron microscope -- -- Binnig & Rohrer -- The role of IBM in automating the holocaust -- Deep Blue -- IBM deal with Microsoft -- does Microsoft now occupy the position IBM did in the 1970s? --
There's no mention of the
IBM 360 or
Thomas J. Watson, Jr. in here (Yes I just finished watching PBS' They Made America)
Dols 04:05, 2004 Nov 23 (UTC)
Right, and there is no mention either of how much the IBM corporate culture owes to the influence of the time Watson senior spent working for John H. Patterson at NCR (National Cash Register) or how Watson senior got stung by his boss at NCR (a long time before IBM was formed) and ended up in jail eventually (see TJW doing time section below), or how Watson junior was in fact in the US Air Force during WW II, seeing to it that the Nazis got bombed to pieces while his dad allegedly (see the IBM and the holocaust section below) helped the same bad guys murder millions of jews. Worse of all, there is no mention of Gene Amdahl or Frederick P. Brooks. There is a tremendous amount of work to be done in the historical section of this article. -- AlainV 04:31, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
Also, IBM built machine guns at one point. Too bad I don't know enough about it, but check out this site: http://www.nraila.org/Issues/Articles/Read.aspx?ID=113 This is an oft-overlooked part of the history.
does Microsoft now occupy the position IBM did in the 1970s?
Why is this relevant in an article about IBM? if you want it, put it in an article about Microsoft and explain what you mean by one entity "occupying a position that another entity occupied". What position? Arch-monopolist? Or what?
As a subject of fear and distrust by hackers yes, in all other matters no. The alleged IBM monopoly in the 70s covered both hardware and software, while Microsoft presently controls only the software aspects of desktop computers and some servers. Furthermore, IBM's control in the 70s was spread over all types of machines, in contrast with Microsoft's specialization in small business systems. AlainV 03:00, 2004 Mar 10 (UTC)
(In the early 1990's during a period of downsizing and retrenchment, a new motto was coined: "THINK or THWIM.")
(Actually, this lisping pun is much older - it appeared at latest in the early seventies)
Shouldn't this page be at [[IBM]]? I know one of the naming conventions is to spell out acronyms, but I think IBM is better recognised than "International Business Machines" - also, it is the most used name English, which is also a naming convention, creating a conflict for this situation.
A look at "what links here" and a Google search (17.4 million vs. 205,000) support the above proposal. Any objections? Jeronimo 11:01 Aug 4, 2002 (PDT)
I shan't note this on the main page, but its true: IBM was founded by a criminal -- Thomas Watson served time in prison for deceptive business practices while he worked for NCR. -- Anonymoues 14:36 Oct 26, 2002 (UTC)
Specifically, anti-trust violations. NCR had a virtual monopoly in cash registers, and he set up a front company to buy all the available second-hand machines and then sell them at a loss, to drive all the second-hand cash register stores out of business. This is discussed in " The Maverick and His Machine" by Kevin Maney-- metamatic 20040719T154800Z
NB: though IBM invented the hard disk, it recently announced plans to spin off its hard disk division to a new company, which will in turn be sold to Hitachi: [1] [2] [3] [4] Someone more enterprising can figure out how to integrate this into the article. k.lee
I just want to say that I found this on IBM page quite useful and learned quite a few things. Kudos to those who wrote and edited it! --Mikhail Capone
There is no mention of that question about Nazi Germany using IBM tabulating machines for the Holocaust. Can somembody throw some data? -- Error
I've taken a cut at it. The book got loads of publicity, so it can't be ignored. I'm guessing the IBM web site says nothing because of the ongoing lawsuit. -- metamatic 20040719T163200Z
I read somewhere that during the war, the Nazi authorities allowed Dehomag to send IBM's share of the profits to a Swiss deposit. I don't remember if that's the standard thing under international war law for goods of belligerant foreigners. If not, it should be mentioned. -- Error 00:58, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Is there any real reason why littleBlue and the ACM Programming contenst are mentioned in the See also section? looks like noise to me. I've removed them from the page. I'm keeping the links here in case someone thinks differently:
Mikiher 11:33, 15 Mar 2004 (UTC)
That picture makes it look like the margin is evaporating.
Year 1980 1981 1982 1983 1984 1985 1986 1987 1988 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 Revenue 26.2 29 34.4 40.2 45.9 50 51.3 54.2 58.6 62.7 67 65 64.5 62.7 64 76 75.9 78.5 81.7 87.5 88.4 85.9 85.9 89.1 Earnings 3.4 3.6 4.4 5.5 5.5 6.6 4.7 5.2 5.8 3.7 6.2 -2.8 -4.96 8.1 3.2 5.4 5.42 6.09 6.3 7.7 8.1 7.7 7.7 7.6 Profit 13.0% 12.4% 12.8% 13.7% 12.0% 13.2% 9.2% 9.6% 9.9% 5.9% 9.3% -4.3% -7.7% 12.9% 5.0% 7.1% 7.1% 7.8% 7.7% 8.8% 9.2% 9.0% 9.0% 8.5%
This article feels like the IBM marketing & propoganda department typed it up over a few beers. THe "trivia" section in particular feels like an advertisement, with a bunch of useless factoids about how wonderful IBM is, and a clumsy attempt to rationalize their cooperation with Nazi concentration camps. The whole section is ridiculous and should be deleted.
It depends what you include in "software". The part of IBM that produces retail software (DB2, Lotus, Rational, etc) has indeed less revenues than Microsoft. But a larger part of IBM's revenues is made up by solutions and services (i.e. custom software solutions) Nowadays, software and related services make up more than half of IBM's revenues.
if you add the Software and Global Services you get more than Microsoft's revenues. bogdan ʤjuʃkə | Talk 08:22, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
I have the first logo of IBM, stripped from here [7], but where should it go? -- Xiong Chiamiov
IBM acquired Ascential ETL and Data integrator this has been missed out in the List of acquisistions of IBM.- Prashanth R. India.
A larger logo is available on their online history [8], according to this document [9] we need a prior permission from IBM Corporate Archives. Did somebody already asked them? explopulator 14:37, 30 sep 2005 (CEST)
The current logo, an SVG, shows as blue-on-grey to me. Does it to anyone else? The IBM logo appears in various colours, but most traditionally is blue-on-white. Mooncow 21:49, 24 June 2006 (UTC)
IBM may be, as the opening para suggests, "the biggest", but the biggest what? Is it still at IT company? It seems focussed on consultancy. It doesn't make PC's. Its servers are backwardly-proprietary and have small market share.
It's embrace of Linux is born of backtracking over the MSDOS mistake (trying to "right wrongs") and is a last gasp attempt to have some presence in software. IBM still exists as a concept and as a revenue stream, but as a player in computing - not really?
The logo of IBM should now be IBM "ON DEMAND BUSINESS" - Prashanth Ramachandra, India.
On Demand Operating Environment. It has four essential characteristics:
IBM give three steps to On Demand...
Business insight is a good thing. But uniting them is what breaks new ground. Every day we are proving this by applying the same discipline and rigor we use to solve technology challenges to solving business problems.
This is why we are committed to open standards and build modularity into everything we offer. Being built for change is a pre-requisite in an on demand world.
than any other partner. IBM leads in the range of choice in how solutions are accessed, deployed and financed.
Can I get a brochure to go? Garglebutt / (talk) 05:51, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
The points about Black's language in "IBM and the Holocaust" being excessive are fine. How about when adding information about the participation of IBM in the Holocaust, only information from primary documents is included eg Watson recieved a medal from Hitler, Watson was regularly in contact with, and directed Dehomag, etc. User:pjanini1
I have changed the phrasing from
"The credibility of Black's book has been questioned, as has its claim that
the Holocaust would have been impossible without Dehomag's data processing systems."
to
"The conclusions of Black's book have been questioned, including its claim that the Holocaust would have been impossible on the scale it reached, without Dehomag's data processing systems."
The first change is because, as far as I know, no-one is attacking Black's sources or the accuracy of his factual statements. The second is because, again as I understand it, Black is not claiming the Nazis wouldn't have instituted the Holocaust without the Hollerith machines, but that the machines allowed them to organise the logistics more efficiently (as per 1st bullet point by Fastfission, several §s above).
JackyR
16:48, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Hollerith was also consulted on making a decryption machine for the Germans [11]. However, they were not informed on the purpose of the machine which may have resulted in Hollerith providing a two year manufacturing estimate.
From Nintendo Revolution: Nintendo has announced that IBM has been working with the development of the CPU, codenamed "Broadway." Seems like Nintendo should be given the honour of being listed with the XBox 360 and PS3. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.161.239.207 ( talk • contribs) 17:52, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
What on earth happened with IBM between its 1960s success and its 1992 ultra-loss? I mean I know there was the rise of Intel, Microsoft, Apple...things like that...what else...maybe the end of the Cold War? Did that do anything? Someone with knowledge of IBM history should fill in that big gap between 1960s and 1992... Even then, someone should specify exactly how IBM restructured AFTER 1992 to return to its current profitability and success. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.193.247.111 ( talk • contribs) 10:24, 21 January 2006 (UTC)
I read that, unlike other Japanese branches of foreign companies, IBM Japan was successful and well-accepted in the protective Japanese market because it was run as a Japanese company rather than a Japanese branch. -- Error 01:13, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
The link leads to the 2005 list which includes HP. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.68.155.225 ( talk • contribs) 20:45, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Not a lot of mention of the Paul Rand-designed logo in this article? — Wackymacs 14:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
I just came here because I was curious to know the story behind IBM's nickname Big Blue. There doesn't seem to be one here, so I'm requesting that someone in the know adds it to the article. Thanks. Druff 16:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
The history section begins with the heading "1888 – 1924: The founding of IBM" and the picture's caption reads "Tabulating Machine Corporation plant in 1893". However, below it says Tabulating Machine Corporation was founded in 1896. What's correct and what's not? Klehti 06:34, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
The 1588 date is way wrong (unless they were counting Gutenberg bibles); 1896 seems correct according to the Herman Hollerith entry on WikiPedia. —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
172.130.131.191 (
talk)
10:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
I would suggest reworking the History section. It is somewhat inaccurate and a little random. What I would suggest instead is to write a brief blurb directing readers to the Main IBM History page. Are there any objections to this suggestion? Paul C. Lasewicz ( talk) 21:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
I am looking for an infromation on an unusual topic: pop music hits from IBM!
In late 1960s or early 1970s, IBM released an LP full of parodies of pop songs with context related to computers. My weak senile memory keeps only two of them:
The latter one goes something like,
I'd very much like to find more info about this IBM music. Surprisingly, I cannot find its traces in the internet. I thought that April issues of Datamation could have kept them, but alas! mikka (t) 20:49, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
At Lotusphere 2006 they sang the Sametime song, there is an annual jamfest at Lotusphere. Also check out Red Box Panic which was the Iris/Lotus band and is still going
The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and may or may not be accurate for the article in question.
*Per
WP:MOS, avoid using words/phrases that indicate time periods relative to the current day. For example, recently might be terms that should be replaced with specific dates/times.
The history section is far too bulky for the main IBM article. I suggest it be spun off into a separate article, with just a short summary of IBM's history left in the main article.
As an example of this approach, have a look at Anglo-Saxons and the way that the history section links to History of Anglo-Saxon England.
Gavin Wilson 16:37, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
I think that the history behind DOS (disk operating system) and IBM/Microsoft is incredibly relevant to this article and to IBM's history. I feel it should be included.
I think this article could use some more information regarding IBM's role during the Holocaust. Would this be relevant for a criticism/affairs section? 82.92.64.247 14:42, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
This page needs "criticism/affairs section," reguarding IBM's tecnology manufacturing and willful collaboration with the Nazi regime directly corresponding to the systematic deaths of victims of the WW2 Holocaust. A usefull starting point would be Edwin Black's Book "IBM and the Holocaust" < http://www.ibmandtheholocaust.com>. Count of Cascadia 12:34, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
Was the "consensus" to Include information within this page under a criticism section, or within the holocaust page under collaboraters? Count of Cascadia 10:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
How is including mention of IBM/holocaust in summary on the main page "pov" pushing? I would direct you to the page of Ford Motor Company, I.G. Farben, and ITT as examples of how other companies have allegations listed on their front page. Thus, it would seem that IBM's particular exclusion would be POV insofar as one might infer the allegations are less important than the other inclusions. I'm not suggesting i believe them to be true, only that this particular exclusion seems rather glaring. -- Chalyres 12:40, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Given the fact that "IBM and the Holocaust: The Strategic alliance between Nazi Germany and America's Most Powerful Corporation" became a long-running New York Times bestseller, it behooves Wikipedia to at least acknowledge the intense legal and political controversy. The book, written by Edwin Black in collaboration with over a hundred holocaust scholars, clearly established IBM's close ties to the Nazi government, development of census data used to identify, locate, and execute minorities, and collaboration with German military in 1939, 1940, and 1941 invasions of European countries. Of course, once America entered WWII, Thomas Watson downplayed his admiration for Nazi Germany. Yet, business was business, and he continued to directly control the German subsidary that made the trains run on time to the camps, kept detailed recornds of camp inmates and fates, and played a critical role in various German military divisions. The fact that Watson avoided trial as a collaborator seems stunning in light of the documented history. Regardless of one's admiration for various IBM products, services, or slogans, the bottomline remains that Wikipedia must include a discussion of this topic. Silence equals acceptance, if not consent. -- 76.168.69.7
Your probably better putting that in the History of IBM page or it's own seperate page. To me to put it on this page appears to be breaking NPOV. -- Archeus 11:17, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
That book was a best-seller for a while but it was largely discounted by the NY Times book review [12] as sensationalistic and not historically accurate. – Shoaler ( talk) 13:05, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Fair enough Blaxthos, but isn't that an argument for including a selection of all controversies, rather than for not mentioning the holocaust controversies? This said, I understand it must be discluded from the article untill this is implemented. (This the same person as User:217.42.222.146|217.42.222.146) 86.146.199.173 23:28, 30 March 2007 (UTC)
The spanish version of this entry includes a brief comment about the allegedly relations between an IBM subsidiary and the nazi regime. At LEAST that should be included in this entry (you can underline the word "allegedly"). Besides, this entry looks like an extension of the IMB website, giving more importance to the corporation's product than its history.
I highly doubt the factual accuracy of this part... There is no definitive, verifiable evidance that points out ANYTHING about IBM willfully collaborating with the Nazi regime... On the side note, I did add an accuracy dispute to the article under controversy. Lets find out once and for all if this is factual ;) Javascap ( talk) 19:56, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
The section still needs improvement, including citations - M.Nelson ( talk) 06:36, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
How can it be around for that long?? They didnt have computers!! unless it was a Babbage Box Realg187 17:13, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
So my computer is made by a company that made guns in WWII??? LOL!! And they mkaed punch card things?!
RealG187
17:30, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
IBM also used to make mechanical cash registers, typewriters etc... long before computers 86.16.153.191 ( talk) 01:36, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Please note the conflict with the Wikipedia reference for HP/Hewlett Packard: IBM: "IBM is the largest information technology company in the world" HP: "HP, is the world's largest information technology corporation" I think a little qualification is in order.
Key market measure is revenue and IBM has lost the crown to HP in 2006. Article has been adjusted to reflect 2006 results. 59.167.56.72 22:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
Edit by different user: I edited the article because of that.The article only reflected 2006 results and the new quarter results are in and IBM is once again leading.Hence"It has been known through most of its recent history as the world's largest computer company".I simply think know it's more general,because if we decided to actually state the results of each quarter, it would never end.Every single quarter, somebody else is leading and it is kind of wrong to compare HP and IBM generally like that since they differ in alot of points.And i've always believed and have seen enough proof to think that IBM is the world's largest computer company especially after it's current revolution with the RFID Tags. It simply has more to offer.
These 'savings' are used each year to distort the company's balance sheet and pay ever inflated salaries to President Palmisano and his cronies. There is very little actual growth in revenues. Stock price has remained largely stagnant for several years - unlike Palmisano's pay package.
Staff who have been with the company for 20 years or more face severe cuts in their pension payments and huge hikes in their health care costs and general abondonment by the company they have given a large part of their lives to.
The general view within the organization is that the company has changed beyond recognition in the last 10 years - not for the better.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 148.210.143.74 ( talk)
Old merge proposal on the IBM Software Group article page that doesn't appear to have been tagged or discussed here. No opinion. Pairadox 05:24, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Could someone elaborate just a but on what a "Sincere Tie" is. Maybe one or two words in a parenthetical? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.20.127.229 ( talk) 14:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
When I came across this page I was intrigued by the 'sincere tie' thing too. Clearly such is POV and would not be accepted in Wikipedia regularly because there is no common-knowledge of what a sincere tie looks like. I motion to remove this part unless the sincerity of the tie can be properly evaluated and cited in a NPOV fashion.
Buzzword or not its a tie and it doesn't hold any meaningful value emotionally and should be regarded as such. We should rewrite this as "They wear ties, too." Not really uncommon for those suit-type businesspeople, but we shouldn't take it too far by giving their clothes the functions of sentience.-- Overdose&YellowJacket ( talk) 02:33, 6 January 2009 (UTC)
Maybe it should be "sober tie". That's what I thought of when I read the sentence (being an IBMer who joined in 1985 i.e. in that era). Martin Packer ( talk) 09:18, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
There is an internal document which describes it as meaing nothing e.g with santa claus on it, or some really psychadelic hawaiin pattern or something. E.g a normal weave or pattern in a conventional colour. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.16.153.191 ( talk) 01:38, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I think the history section should be longer. Also the article should mention that IBM sold its HDD division to Hitachi.
The "Jam" and "Project Management Center of Excellence" are too long. These seem largely to deal with internal affairs and I think not very concrete, notable or interesting (salient).
Why do the mainframes of IBM get so little attention in this article?
What hardware does IBM still develop apart from processors for video game consoles and what does it still manufacture and what hardware does it still sell? I guess IBM manufactures at the moment very little hardware. Andries ( talk) 22:46, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
This Oct 16th 2007 article [13] says
[Quarterly] Revenue from IBM’s systems and technology group came in at $4.9 billion, down 10 percent from a year ago. System z server products fell 31 percent from a year ago. System i server sales fell 21 percent.
As far as I can see, that means 4.9 billion dollars were earned from their hardware division for three months (am I right?) Which is about 20% of their overall revenue. (About 5 billion, times 4 quarters, is 20 billion. 20 billion is 20% of about 100 billion annual revenue). So IBM does sell lots of hardware, even if the performance of their sales is poor as of late 2007, in terms of growth. 216.94.11.2 ( talk) 20:29, 4 March 2008 (UTC)
Major money making products or notable products that are not end of marketing should be listed, I think. The article makes it now not very clear how IBM makes its money. See list of IBM products. Andries ( talk) 22:24, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Right, and most notable of these is System z - given how much money we make from it and its technical vitality. Martin Packer ( talk) 09:19, 20 January 2009 (UTC)
I think the controversy about IBM and the holocaust is a footnote in IBM's history and not worth mentioning here. There is limited space here in the summary of IBM's history and this is not notable and important enough. Andries ( talk) 16:46, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
I think it should be a paragraph at least. IBM probably monitor there own page so I couldn't think it's possible. -- Uwaisis ( talk) 18:21, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm wondering why the 32 years of antitrust lawsuit against IBM (1950-1982) is only mentioned in very passing in the article, and also not mentioned as missing in the TODO-list or on the talk page. Together with AT&T's and MS', these are the three big antitrust actions against technology companies, AFAIK, and certainly influenced the public image of IBM for a very long time. http://www.hagley.lib.de.us/1980.htm has a nice introduction at the start. jschrod ( talk) 10:04, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
This is potentially really really big news, there is lots of it all over the net but as a starter here is one reference: IBM Hit With Temporary Contract Ban Mathmo Talk 08:08, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't know how important typewriters were for IBM, but for typewriters the Selectric was a major player. It should be mentioned. Kdammers ( talk) 09:22, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
This was the first thing that came to my mind when I finished reading the article. 68.72.218.241 ( talk) 07:56, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
Talk it up IBM, this whole article was obviously written by someone that works for IBM. An example includes the fact that the Wikipedia article contains the fact that IBM has anti-discrimitory views to homosexuality... So? Pealse make this article less like an advertisment and more like a Encyclopedia page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.71.85 ( talk) 14:18, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
I may be missing something, but what's going on with the IBM logo page? If you click on it, it links to a page that appears to have been deleted. It has no history, and it warns me not to start a talk page for something that doesn't have an associated article. Something doesn't look right. It also looks like the license stated for the logo is incorrect. The IBM logo is not a type-faced logo, there is significant art in the logo. I think the only way we can use it is if we use a low resolution version and claim it under the WP:LOGO guidelines. Thoughts? Chaldor ( talk) 05:07, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Issue closed. Logo had been long debated here and defined as as type face (I don't agree, but that's no matter). They really should have an easier way of finding those archives, otherwise people like me will keep flagging things to be taken down. Chaldor ( talk) 10:36, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
Why does this article has the Category Monopolies? The word monopoly is nowhere in the article. Kinamand ( talk) 09:05, 19 October 2008 (UTC)
![]() | |
Company type | Public ( NYSE: IBM) |
---|---|
Founded | Endicott, New York, U.S. (1889, incorporated 1911) |
Headquarters | , USA |
Revenue | ![]() |
![]() | |
Number of employees | 386,558 (2007) [1] |
Could someone source correctly these numbers ? -- Eurobas ( talk) 19:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
I have made a proposal for an IBM WikiProject. All interested editors are encouraged to join! :) // Blaxthos ( t / c ) 12:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)
The Bush administration is considering launching an extensive probe of whether the pending sale of International Business Machines Corp.'s personal computer business to a Chinese company might pose national security problems, according to members of a congressional oversight group. Such a probe could disrupt or delay a $1.75 billion deal that has been widely viewed as a dramatic sign of China's transformation into an economic power with ambitions to acquire businesses abroad and create global brands. Under the accord, announced last month, Lenovo Group Ltd., China's largest computer manufacturer, would buy IBM's PC business, which would make it the No. 3 maker in a market that the U.S. technology giant helped pioneer. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A33869-2005Jan24.html BillyTFried ( talk) 17:38, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
hey ibm —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.11.167.25 ( talk) 17:42, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
In addition to my cleanup comments on the history of the page, I also reordered it so that nondiscrimination material was all together -- the genetic nondiscrimination information was after all the labor/layoff minutia (which doesn't seem to belong in this section but in its own, but I'll let someone else clean that up). Also: a separate section on "Gay rights" just after this section on "Diversity in the Workforce" also doesn't make much sense, but that's a re-org of sections that's probably beyond my ken. DAB-NYC ( talk) 12:46, 21 May 2010 (UTC)DAB-NYC
Shouldn't there be a section about Deep Blue, a 1997 computer which was the first one in the world to beat the world champion of chess, and was made by IBM? (Garry Kasparov in 1997) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.220.106.35 ( talk) 23:49, 30 June 2010 (UTC)
"IBM is the world's fourth largest technology company and the second most valuable by global brand[4] (after Coca-Cola)" —Preceding unsigned comment added by MrK4 ( talk • contribs) 15:49, 3 July 2010 (UTC)
The "See also" list as it stands is too long to be useful to readers. I've removed the individual product pages from "See also" and left the internal link to List of IBM products. Crysb ( talk) 18:23, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
"Founded in 1911, IBM manufactures and sells computer hardware" - really very ineresting... computers in 1911 :-)))) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vallenty ( talk • contribs) 16:33, 6 January 2011 (UTC)
re: "and spinning off companies like SAP (1972)". This statement is suspect. According to the history I've read, SAP was founded by former IBMers, but not as a spinoff (no corporate backing from IBM). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.179.123.251 ( talk) 18:44, 4 February 2011 (UTC)
Why is the IBM-Holocaust connection not articulated, including the company response? For many Wikipedia readers this is very relevant. The "country specific" exclusion makes no sense to me whatsoever. Truly, this needs at least a few sentences — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.218.56.76 ( talk) 04:16, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
I found the premise of www.ibmandtheholocaust.com to be interesting and slightly relevant. I note that someone has already added the book to the "further reading" section. The Siemens article has a section related to Nazi Germany, though I don't know if IBM's involvement qualifies mention. Anyone know enough about the topic to chime in on whether a mention should be included in the history of IBM? Woken Wanderer ( talk) 00:45, 23 April 2011 (UTC)
I am amazed to see a gap in the historical record of IBM, spanning between 1978 and 1991. This is a critical period in IBMs history, when the chickens released by IBM's "partnering" with Microsoft came home to roost!
Relative to the S&P 500 IBM's share value crashed, from being approximatey +250% of S&P 500 index in 1985 to a low somewhere close to 20% of the value of the S&P 500 index in 1993. From my memory there was talk of IBM collapsing after drinking deeply of that poisoned chalice. http://moneycentral.msn.com/investor/charts/chartdl.aspx?PT=11&showchartbt=Redraw+chart&compsyms=&CB=1&D4=1&DD=1&D5=0&DCS=2&MA0=0&MA1=0&C5=1&C5D=1&C6=&C7=1&C7D=1&C8=&C9=-1&CF=0&D7=&D6=&symbol=ibm&nocookie=1&SZ=0 LookingGlass ( talk) 19:43, 9 May 2011 (UTC)
I propose merging Extreme Blue into this article. The main article already conveys much of what the spin off article does, and I feel the spin off offers little if any value. — Eustress talk 17:03, 17 May 2011 (UTC)
Merge completed. — Eustress talk 22:56, 24 May 2011 (UTC)
Computing Tabulating Recording Corporation → IBM (or History of IBM): Why 2 articles on the same company? The articles have already basically said that CTR was simply renamed to IBM. Thus, they are the exact same corporate entity, the only difference being in the corporate name. That is not enbough to make them two different companies; CTR was simply renamed to IBM. So thus I suggest that we merge the Computing Tabulating Recording Corporation in to either this article ( IBM) or the History of IBM article. Those seem like two good relevant articles to choose from as a merge target. I would not be surprised if the Computing Tabulating Recording Corporation article has information that duplicates that found in either of my proposed merge targets either. Making this worse is that CTR's article has information, namely the infobox, that suggests that CTR is "defunct", when it is in reality alive and well today as IBM. This is not the only time where I have seen two Wikipedia articles on the same company for different names that company used over the years. Regards, [| Retro00064| ☎talk| ✍contribs|] 01:14, 20 May 2011 (UTC)
"IBM employs more than 425,000 employees (sometimes referred to as "IBMers") in over 200 countries, with occupations including scientists, engineers, consultants, and sales professionals.[9]" I can't see exactly where in the source this is taken from (and it's a little surprising because 200 is more nations than are internationally recognised.) It seems likely to be at least misleading.
Here's a qoute from ibm's website on how many people it employs and it's global spread: "The IBM Corporation is today one of the world's largest and leading IT companies. Worldwide, IBM operates in some 170 countries and employs more than 390,000 people." http://www.ibm.com/ibm/my/en/
I may have missed something though... Wight1984 ( talk) 13:37, 31 May 2011 (GMT) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.236.154.100 ( talk)
I agree that this page should be merged with IBM, at which point the name of this predecessor entity could be corrected. IBM's own archives refer to its origin as the Computing-Tabulating-Recording Company (note hyphens and Company, not Corporation).-- Mfwills ( talk) 13:01, 9 July 2011 (UTC)
I believe this article to be biased. The corporate affairs section sounds like an advertisement by only talking about how great it is to work for IBM. There are a number of criticisms for the company, such as old fashioned practices, and there is no mention of anything negative anywhere in the article.
--23:46, 7 January 2013 (UTC)anonymous
The nazi connection is also barely mentioned, at first glance. Karin Anker ( talk) 04:52, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
I've reverted Eustress's archiving. The discussion is still of interest. Wikipedia threads frequently lie dormant for several years before being taken up again, as they have ongoing relevance to the topic. This is the first time I've seen a Talk page archived because of inactivity of the threads. The usual reason is that there is an unwieldy amount of material that needs to be brought back to a manageable level. Koro Neil ( talk) 01:30, 28 February 2012 (UTC)
The article says: "In the late 1970s, IBM underwent some internal convulsions between those in management wanting to concentrate on their bread-and-butter mainframe business, and those wanting the company to invest heavily in the emerging personal computer industry." As far as I know, this is incorrect. Mainframes and other proprietary systems continued to be IBMs main business at least for some two decades more. Yes, it was revolutionary for IBM to copperate with external firms (Microsoft and Intel) to launch the IBM PC, but IBM profits continued to be dependent on IBMs proprietary systems.
An essential aspect of IBMs history is missing: the various law suits about alleged monopolistic practices IBM was involved in (was the article "cleaned" by IBMers who don't like to be reminded of that time?) I don't know enough of IBM history to update the article, but I do know that IBM was convicted as early as the 1950s to a consent decree that was only lifted some 10 years ago. In the 1970s IBM was again accused for monopolistic practices, and from 1974 prepared for a split-up, with a structure of divisions that might split off as independent companies. In the early 1980s, president Reagan allegedly told the "independent" prosecutor that a strong USA needs strong firms, so that he'd better focus his attention to other projects. Then the divisions merged again into a "customer set organisation".
Unlike some other companies accused of monopolistic practices, IBM was always keen on avoiding conflicts in this field, and employees who were found to violate the internal "business conduct guidelines" were dismissed immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rbakels ( talk • contribs) 20:12, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
One example is Polaroid, which came into a crisis when the digital camera was developed. Polaroid actually researched and developed a digital camera model, but as its business idea was to sell cheap cameras and make profit on selling film packages it could not find a way to make continued profit on a digital camera, so it continued with its old business model, until it was bankrupted when the digital camera took over the market.
Another well known example was IBM's business strategy. For many years IBM thought that a few powerful computers would be enough for the whole world. IBM leased terminals, a keyboard, a monitor and a telephone modem, and to use the terminal the terminal was connected to a big computer. The company which leased this terminal from IBM had to pay for education from IBM, and use IBM's software. When the first personal computers appeared in 1979 IBM ignored them, seeing them as useless toys. During the first years of the 1980s hundreds of companies produced ever better personal computers, and in 1983 a number of companies developed the MSX standard to make these personal computers compatible with each other.
Suddenly IBM realized that they had made a big mistake. People wanted to own personal computers, and IBM was threatened by this new development. To counter this threat IBM did something they had never done before. IBM developed a personal computer, the PC, and did not protect it with a patent. This was necessary to make the IBM PC the market leader. The circuit was published in electronics magazines and companies all over the world started building PC's. Other personal computers like Sinclair ZX 80, ZX Spectrum and Sinclair QL, Commodore 64, and personal computers made by Toshiba and many other companies were quickly forgotten, together with the MSX standard. IBM only protected the BIOS circuit, so they could have some control over this new market. But the BIOS circuit was reverse engineered by other companies and IBM lost all control of the hardware. IBM made one more try to regain control over the PC, it produced the operating system OS2, to compete with Microsoft, but eventually gave up and went back to its traditional business idea, producing big computers. This chain of events gave us the PC, a standard personal computer which billions of people can use, and they can use the same programs and exchange data and programs with each other.
This chain of events also had side effects. Since IBM chose to use Intel's series of computer chips, 8088, 8086, and later 80286 and 80386, etc.. instead of the more powerful Zilog Z80 and its later models Z800 and Z8000, or the Motorola computer chips, 6800, MOS version 6501, 68000, Intel became the dominating supplier for computer chips for many years into the future.
And since Microsoft was chosen as the producer of the operating system for this PC Microsoft became the software giant it is today.
I think this should be mentioned in the article about IBM, and/or the article about the PC, but I don't have time to look up sources, so I leave it as a suggestion on the discussion page. Roger491127 ( talk) 05:46, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
IBM made considerable sales of computers to the Soviet Union, especially during World War II and during the Cold War. These are not mentioned in the article. I hope that this isn't because of a POV to deny the fact that sales were made by IBM to the Soviet Union.-- R-41 ( talk) 01:45, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
There is absolutely no mention of their involvement in the Holocaust, with the exception of one sentence placing their involvement with the Third Reich on the same shelf as their involvement with the Social Security Act. Thomas Watson personally oversaw the relationship between IBM and the THird Reich by taking trips to Germany and meeting with HItler himself choosing to meet in person as opposed to corresponding on paper. He is on record for attributing this to being able to deny it in the future. Why isn't this listed? [4] 24.234.69.122 ( talk) 16:48, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
Indeed I read IBM had a deal to make a secret punch card database that had the ID of all American Jews in the advent that Germany invaded America. I'll try and find the link with all of the internal memo's and leaks on old Nazi projects. 72.225.43.247 ( talk) 05:08, 2 January 2013 (UTC)
We already had two sets of rankings, one in the lede and one in the Corporate recognition and brand section, then someone added a third statment about IBM being the fourth largest by market cap. I think that's too many, so I removed the rankings from the lede. I see I've messed up the refs, sorry about that, I'll see if I can fix it. Kendall-K1 ( talk) 17:02, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
I often wonder how I became one (1) of 90 people sent off, under direction of Mr. Estridge to create the IBM dual floppy drive machine...that has little by little changed our world for the better good and some...well possibly not.
It was a most wonderful time for all of us....18 months from thought to the first functional machine! I wonder, if that plane crash @ Dallas Fort Worth had not taken so many shooting stars that day....if our cheif engineer and brain power(s) had been on separate flights, might we have maintained, expanded, and kept Boca Raton alive?
Many of that initial number of the design and manufacturing team are gone...is there a book that defines this historical task not from the cold corporate view, but from the employee elation perspective? I mention to folks I know now and then, I was a small part of the first "PC"....I usually get funny looks.
Dwayne (I wore a blue suit) Big Blue — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.70.113.135 ( talk) 15:55, 17 January 2013 (UTC)
See Rometty, Ginni (March 11, 2013). "A Conversation with Ginni Rometty". Transcript. Council on Foreign Relations.
72.244.200.127 ( talk) 20:47, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
Since an editor, in apparent violation of WP:RV, has chosen to revert two versions of a WP:GOODFAITH change to the introduction, I thought I'd do what that editor hasn't: begin a discussion on the matter. Perhaps a few of the 400+ editors watching this article could comment.
The issue is this: Should the phrase "half of whom have been with the company for less than five years", based on a March 2013 quote from IBM's CEO, be reverted from the introduction:
IBM has 433,362 employees as of 2012, half of whom have been with the company for less than five years.[7] According to Fortune, IBM is the second-largest U.S. firm in number of employees;[2] it is also fourth largest in market capitalization,[8] the ninth most profitable,[9] and the #19 largest firm in terms of revenue.[10] Globally, the company was ranked the #31 largest in terms of revenue by Forbes for 2011.[11][12] Other rankings for 2011/2012 include #1 company for leaders (Fortune), #1 green company worldwide (Newsweek), #2 best global brand (Interbrand), #2 most respected company (Barron's), #5 most admired company (Fortune), and #18 most innovative company (Fast Company).[13]
I see no problem with that phrase being in the introduction. 72.244.206.5 ( talk) 05:45, 24 March 2013 (UTC)
IBM was founded in the US, but less than 1/5 of IBMs workforce is currently based in the US. Perhaps there is a more accurate way to reference IBM's American past. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mister Tog ( talk • contribs) 3 July 2013
Annual revenue for 2012 is available and should be updated in the sidebar. Not sure why all the other numbers up-to-date except that one. SimonSage84 ( talk) 17:50, 22 August 2013 (UTC)
By the late '60's and early'70's IBM Selectric typewriters in both ball and later daisy wheel configurations had become a standard in most businesses, schools, law enforcement, government, etc. offices. The word ubiquitous comes to mind. Shouldn't there be at least a short section on these typewriters? 2602:306:BDC0:CF90:75D1:7D75:2484:7FD0 ( talk) 15:41, 19 October 2013 (UTC)
The article says: "In the late 1970s" "In the late 1970s, IBM underwent some internal convulsions between those in management wanting to concentrate on their bread-and-butter mainframe business, and those wanting the company to invest heavily in the emerging personal computer industry."
Wikipedia sources list: The IBM Personal Computer Disk Operating System was was sold as a DOS system for the IBM Personal Computer and compatibles, sold by IBM from the 1980s to the 2000s. IBM model number 5150 was introduced on August 12, 1981. IBM PC DOS 1.0 released with the IBM PC on August 1981. The IBM Machine Type number 5160 was released on March 8, 1983 The Personal System/2 or PS/2 was IBM's third generation of personal computers released in 1987.
Sources: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_Personal_Computer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_PC_DOS http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IBM_PC_DOS#History
IBMs participation in the creation of the term "IBM PC compatible" is clearly documented in Wikipedia. Links can help the readers. Billgdiaz ( talk) 17:05, 20 December 2013 (UTC)
The section "Research and inventions" says that IMB supports open source. But in the 1970s and 1980s, their software was distributed without the source code, thus forcing clients to hire them for services. Can you add this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.134.67.176 ( talk) 22:22, 27 December 2013 (UTC)
A merge of IBM Global Services into this article was suggested. I think that for a giant company like this with very extensive information available, such a merge would be altogether inappropriate. DGG ( talk ) 18:05, 19 December 2014 (UTC)
Any corporation should not have more than one page associated with it. If WWII can be put on one page, then so can a company. Otherwise why shouldn't every company have each of its divisions listed? This is supposed to be an encyclopedia not a billboard in Manhattan. Just my thoughts. it is a slippery slope if you allow companies to have more than one page. Kirk Chisholm 18:18, 14 January 2015 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirkchisholm ( talk • contribs)
I have here an article of an german weekly computer newspaper from Mai 1989, wich is sarcastic that IBM have registered "Big Blue" as trademark. It is sacastic, because the autor think, that not IBM has invented the pet name, and that they stolen it. And he refers also to the film in the yeat before: The Big Blue. It is now registered?
-- Franz (Fg68at) de:Talk 00:04, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
Although the desk decoration is usually only the single word, it is actually a contraction of the motto: "People should think, machines should work". 101.161.137.23 ( talk) 07:23, 14 February 2014 (UTC)
Based on the edit summary by 50.136.247.190, there seems to be some disagreement on the founding location of IBM - whether it's Endicott, or New York City, or both. The original source provided by 50.136.247.190 from the IBM archives says that the company was based in New York City. I have seen another source that says headquarters were moved there some time in 1911, though it's not clear if this was before or after founding. Contemporary sources list founding in New York State (but not a specific city), while the Poor's 1922 business listing states that corporate offices were in Endicott and general offices were in New York City. The book by Maney lists both Endicott and New York City. Are there other sources that document this?
Given the ambiguity across multiple sources, perhaps it's best to (1) list both Endicott and New York City, or (2) simply write New York State? Alternatively, perhaps the infobox should say New York State, and the history section should document the two sets of offices?
Thanks!
Item 15 in the references is an invalid link? It sends me to a search engine. dafuq — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.67.224.241 ( talk) 20:57, 1 November 2015 (UTC)
Vmanjr ( talk) 02:53, 12 October 2015 (UTC)
While IBM was a counter-party to the first swap agreement, this does not constitute invention of the financial product. In fact it was Salomon Brothers who came up with the idea for the deal. Will now remove the financial swap from the list of IBM inventions. The fact that the first swap agreement was between IBM and the World Bank is already reported on the Swap (finance) page in any case. Andrastea ( talk) 23:11, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
I'm thinking about organizing this article more like the Apple ( /info/en/?search=Apple_Inc. ) or Microsoft one: ( /info/en/?search=Microsoft ) with a more detailed history section, a dedicated section for Businesses, and putting Financial, Logo, Nickname, and potentially some others under a Corporate affairs section.
Any thoughts on that before I get started? Strawgate ( talk) 15:33, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Any thoughts on using IBM's history archive for history information or should I largely be pulling from the History of IBM page? Strawgate ( talk) 18:51, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
I'll also be eliminating the, "Selected Current Projects" section and moving them under either Businesses or History.
Strawgate (
talk)
20:55, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
Does anyone know enough about either of these to make an article explaining them? Came across the terminology but I'm a bit confused about it.
The OEF initialism is mentioned here:
I don't know if anywhere explains what Optim is though. Is this a notable IBM creation? Ranze ( talk) 05:55, 10 September 2016 (UTC)
Hello, this user believes that a picture of a product (in this case IBM Watson) is a good illustration for a whole company (in this case IBM). This is the only article I can think of with the picture of a product in the image field of the infobox for a company. It is the (de facto) consensus in the WikiProject Companies to use a picture of the headquarters of the company in this field. I think that putting a picture of IBM Watson in this field is misleading. IBM is not reducible to this single product. -- RaphaelQS ( talk) 17:13, 1 October 2016 (UTC)
I had thought that the company was now IBM, not anymore an acronym for International Business Machines, but I don't have any references. This article seems to suggest that isn't true. Looking at http://www.ibm.com I don't see any mention of another name. Gah4 ( talk) 16:23, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on IBM. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:33, 7 April 2017 (UTC)
Maybe include a section on the Control Data lawsuit. Thomas Watson (Jr) mentions this in detail in his autobiography (Father, Son & Co. ).
Pete318 ( talk) 11:43, 11 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on IBM. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:30, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest was declined. The reviewer would like to request the editor with a COI attempt to discuss with editors engaged in the subject-area first. |
Hi there! There's a small addition I'd like to request for this article's "See also" section: New-collar worker. This newly-created article is directly related to IBM, which coined the term. I think inclusion in the "See also" section might be more appropriate than somehow integrating the phrase into the article's prose (though I'm not opposed, if editors feel differently). As a quick note of disclosure, I have a financial COI as I am here on behalf of IBM via Vianovo, as part of my work at Beutler Ink. I prefer not to edit articles directly and am looking for editors to review my suggestion. Please let me know if you have any questions. @ Chetsford: Pinging to keep you in the loop, or in case you're interested in helping out again. Thanks! 16912 Rhiannon ( Talk · COI) 15:02, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
Declined A similar proposal regarding this term was made and discussed
here, where the consensus was that this was a
neologism which should await broader acceptance before being used in that article. I suggest that further discussion ought to occur here before its use is decided upon. Regards,
Spintendo
ᔦᔭ
19:09, 10 January 2018 (UTC)
I came to wikipedia today looking for information about the origin of the nickname "Colossus of Armonk" for IBM. When I searched for the phrase I got a redirect to this article, but when I searched the article I got no information about the name. I'm sure it's just a reference to IBM being big and having it's HQ in Armonk so it probably doesn't require more info, but should the redirect point here if the article doesn't even reference the name? The more common "Big Blue" also redirects here, but it is mentioned in the lede.
The oldest reference I can find with a 'quick google search' seems to be this one https://www.nytimes.com/1982/01/09/business/dominance-ended-ibm-fights-back.html from 1982 but the title of the 1981 book by Robert Sobel "IBM: Colossus in Transition" (ISBN 0-8129-1000-1) suggests that the name might be older than that.
Anyone know or have any interest in adding it? Possibly it belongs in the History of IBM article rather than here, although back to my original point I think if it goes anywhere then the redirect should also point there and if it doesn't go into any article then the redirect should probably go too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8109:440:8790:E90B:85E3:43F4:84C2 ( talk) 07:39, 3 May 2018 (UTC)
https://www.cnbc.com/2018/10/28/ibm-is-reportedly-nearing-deal-to-acquire-red-hat.html
The Value of the Red Hat IBM deal is at $34 Billion as of October 2018. — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
2601:640:c600:8270:a563:d5b6:732c:339a (
talk)
20:11, 28 October 2018 (UTC)
Kindly check this paragraph, administrators: "Later he introduced Uber in 1890 to book his travels accordingly from Guindy to DLF IT Park. There were days when he didn’t get Uber, so he used to book Ola and Meru also. When he got nothing he switched to QuickRide.[9] "
Thank you! Polytope4D ( talk) 15:49, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
I have removed that part. Kindly warn the editor. Polytope4D ( talk) 16:02, 20 January 2019 (UTC)
Any particular reason zero mention of their initial anti-competitive behavior with Microsoft is listed here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.125.181.217 ( talk) 03:44, 8 September 2013 (UTC)
No one wants to show their wrong side, so IBM employees monitoring this page will not allow it to be put. Polytope4D ( talk) 07:24, 24 January 2019 (UTC)
There is nothing in the article about IBMs activities in communication products, perhaps they ended in the sale of the related division(s) to CISCO (euphemistically named "strategic cooperation").
If Wikipedia's ambition is a "neutral point of view", failures must be mentioned too.
I don't have the ambition to write a related Wikipedia text myself, but I'd like to stress that once the "communication products division", headquartered in Research Triangle Park (NC) was huge, with its expensive 37x5 communication controllers and its equally expensive VTAM and NCP software products. Rbakels ( talk) 05:06, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Preface - I wrote this update to the "People and culture" section, subsection "Employees." I recommend adding a new paragraph before the last one. The new paragraph would take the one sentence in the current, penultimate paragraph that references labor relations and add more to it. I have added my suggested edit below:
In terms of labor relations, the company has traditionally resisted labor union organizing, although unions represent some IBM workers outside the United States.
[5]
[6] One of the main criticisms of IBM is its continued, large-scale layoffs since the 1990s. After its peak employment numbers in the 1980s, IBM cut its US workforce drastically, up to three-quarters of what it once was. From 2013 to 2018, IBM ousted over 20,000 employees who were 40 years old or older.
[7] — Preceding
unsigned comment added by
Talmtrees (
talk •
contribs)
01:31, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
References
morningstar
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).