Kill them all
Let God sort it out
57 publicly visible posts • joined 3 Nov 2013
Let's say IBM loses their case and they're held responsible. Let's say part of IBM's defense was "But it worked and we have a responsibility to do that". But it didn't work. It failed. They fired everyone with a brain and replaced them with 21 year social justice warriors and diversity hires who stuck around for 2 or 3 years and then bailed on the company. So IBM's strategy didn't work because the problem with IBM has never been the people they hire. The problem is IBM. The problem is the people IBM puts in charge. No one wants to work for a monolithic company with 17 layers of management. When I started at IBM I was 5 people from the CEO. At one point I was 13 people away and when I left they had somehow managed to flatten that to 9. IBM wants younger people for two reasons: 1) they're cheaper and 2) they're easier to push around. They don't want smart bright cutting edge people. That they can buy with an acquisition. They fired old people because the company no longer values skill, knowledge or experience and sees everyone as a cost center to be squashed out.
tech providers from Google to Meta and beyond know everything you do think want need feel and say and happily send all that info to the government for free, and unrequested in their drive to crush all thoughts they don't approve of. Yes nothing is private. Nothing. Now what?
It's that it died a perfectly predictably death under the idiotic top heavy process driven we have more lawyers and accountants than scientists ethos of IBM. They got rid of most R&D long ago and decided to purchase all their expertise. The problem was in then forcing all those bright young acquisitions into the Big Blue Blockhead Method. Every acquisition chained the top talent to the firm for 2-3 years, they vest and then run for the doors. Why? Because no small young aggressive nimble company wants to work for 13 vice presidents who all want status reports and detailed metrics on a daily basis.
All of these commitments come with massive allowances from state and local government, typically in the form of tax abatements and deferrals. The agreement is then tied to promises on the number of jobs they will create. The problem is that most of these plans fail, badly. So state and local government doesn't get their tax money, causing them to increase taxes on the rest of us and then the jobs don't materialize anyway.
Your main assumption, that big corps use 'free' software because it's free and good enough even when it breaks, ignores another equally important aspect. Paid-for software, often very expensive paid-for software doesn't do a great job of preemptively finding problems and correcting is, let's say, uneven. Moreover when you stumble into a major problem with their software, good luck getting it fixed unless you're a huge company or a nation-state.
And not in a good way. After obscuring their financials to the point where their CFO is pulling numbers out of his ass, IBM has returned to mass firings. Who doesn't think that the Board compensation committee decided to award execs according to how many people they toss out and that alone.
They will make a bloated clunky confusing mishmash that limps along while MS tells us it will work better if you only buy Azure and SharePoint. It won't work well with Android or iOS, it will have endless patches and unless your org is running a perfectly matched set of identical clients things will break. The beauty of Slack is that it precisely HASN'T changed much. It does what it needs to do, simply. They haven't tossed in 3 million horrible features no one wants.
I can only conclude that they're being paid to be indifferent. At some point someone has to say they're not meeting the standard of fiduciary responsibility. Billions of dollars flushed down the toilet as executives award themselves absurd bonuses and rewards.
That's a serious question. In my years there I never saw a single lateral posting that was real. I've never heard of someone using the system to actually find and get a different job. I never saw a single person hired in who wasn't a personal friend of a management consultant last hired by the VP. On rare occasions people were allowed to move laterally if they threatened to quit but that's clearly not going you work this time.