Jefferies gives IBM Watson a Wall Street reality check • Hacker News Board

Re: Jefferies gives IBM Watson a Wall Street reality check

#181

Post by lordnacho » Fri, Jul 14, 2017, 7:01 AM UTC

save_ferris wrote: post #12

I don't think this isn't limited to IBM, my partner's PE firm recently hired a small consulting group touting a "revolutionary, AI-driven" real-estate analysis product that has zero AI whatsoever. It's basically a custom spreadsheet tool that they're claiming to be building AI on top of as they consume company data, but for a few hundred grand per year, they have a basic CRUD app on Azure with a reporting tool using…

> I don't think this isn't limited to IBM,

I work in quant finance, and indeed there is currently a boom of people claiming to be building AI/ML funds. I mean there's some smart people who actually do have AI/ML degrees, but it's sold just like Watson: magic beans.

Now it's not that it can't be done, it's just not as easy as "hire an AI guy and show him financial data". Same with Watson, it's not physically impossible to build a cancer scanner, it's just very hard and not quite fulfilling lofty expectations yet.

Re: Jefferies gives IBM Watson a Wall Street reality check

#182

Post by flukus » Fri, Jul 14, 2017, 7:04 AM UTC

filereaper wrote: post #68

zoeysaurusrex wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm happy to be harsh because I've had years and years of experience dealing with IBM. Their tools are trash for the cost they want. The majority of their offerings are overengineered and prone to failure in a production setting. They are pros at selling to non-technical management, all the while IT employees get stuck dealing with the aftermath. We ended up getting stuck with the IBM version of work item management,…

Hey man, you're not alone, even internal teams at IBM using Jazz Team Concert have been calling it "dog shit wrapped in cat shit" for years now. Don't be so harsh on all of IBM, its like hundreds of companies under one banner. Not all of them have the power to influence other products and often times end up stuck with it and cannot move on to other tools (i.e git). More often than not, customers have higher priority…

> Don't be so harsh on all of IBM, its like hundreds of companies under one banner. Not all of them have the power to influence other products and often times end up stuck with it and cannot move on to other tools (i.e git).

The do this so different divisions can lean on each other and benefit from the IBM brand name. If they want the benefits of this shared branding then the deserve the downsides from it too.

I've noticed many companies recently thinking they can have it both ways (samsung and sony come to mind). Live by the brand, die by the brand!

Re: Jefferies gives IBM Watson a Wall Street reality check

#183

Post by raverbashing » Fri, Jul 14, 2017, 7:06 AM UTC

vacri wrote: post #91

Swizec wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Nobody ever got fired for buying IBM"

Maybe, but then again you can't buy IBM if you're forbidden from buying it in the first place. https://www.itnews.com.au/news/queenslands-ibm-ban-lives-on-...

I'm so glad people are getting enough of IBM bullshit

Re: Jefferies gives IBM Watson a Wall Street reality check

#184

Post by lewisl9029 » Fri, Jul 14, 2017, 7:07 AM UTC

chipperyman573 wrote: post #179

lewisl9029 wrote: post #169

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember hearing a lot of great things about Cloudant, which happens to be from IBM, on HN and elsewhere. Is that just a notable exception or are there better alternatives out there these days for hosted CouchDB?

Didn't IBM buy Cloudant? And wasn't it based off of an Apache application? Not saying it's not good (I've never used it), but IBM can't really get any credit for this. They just happen to have bought a decent product and now they sell it.

Right, my intention by pointing out Cloudant wasn't to offer it as a counter-example (I personally have 0 experience with it), but rather to see if anyone might have some red flags to share, as I'm considering using Cloudant instead of hosting my own CouchDB instances for a new project I'm speccing out, and especially since nobody has mentioned it as a counter-example in this thread so far.

Re: Jefferies gives IBM Watson a Wall Street reality check

#185

Post by phs318u » Fri, Jul 14, 2017, 7:12 AM UTC

abtinf wrote: post #43

phs318u wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What makes you think I am trying to solve?

In the jobs I've held, getting asked by the CEO to look into a technology means there is some underlying problem or opportunity.

Sorry abtinf.

My comment was literally the response from the Eliza chatbot when fed your comment. It was an admittedly oblique attempt at humour. My apologies.

Re: Jefferies gives IBM Watson a Wall Street reality check

#186

Post by thisisit » Fri, Jul 14, 2017, 7:21 AM UTC

deepGem wrote: post #113

zoeysaurusrex wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm happy to be harsh because I've had years and years of experience dealing with IBM. Their tools are trash for the cost they want. The majority of their offerings are overengineered and prone to failure in a production setting. They are pros at selling to non-technical management, all the while IT employees get stuck dealing with the aftermath. We ended up getting stuck with the IBM version of work item management,…

What perplexes me is that none of these seem to affect their services business. 39 billion in services revenues is nothing to scoff at. I mean how can a company build shitty products like this and be a world leader in services ? Do these units operate like two separate entities.

It is actually a cycle. Managers in an enterprise are judged based on their ability to deliver low cost solutions ie "savings". IBM(or any service business) is very good at selling these low cost solutions to managers.

We are starting a project and even with FTE's within the company, "consultant" has convinced management to hire IBM resources because of cost. The high sounding reason within the presentation twisted it to - FTE's are not expert in this tech so they won't be able to do an efficient job.

But it is always that the end resources from IBM are even more incompetent. They end up delivering a product which is terrible. Even the final handovers and KTs are done terribly.

In the end, management has no option but to continue hiring IBM (or any service business) to support the shoddily done project.

This doesn't mean all implementations from a services business is terrible. It all comes down to cost and ability to spend. If you pay peanuts, you get monkeys - this is aptly true.

To answer your last question - Yes there are different entities within IBM. There is GBS which takes up most of the consulting and up-selling IBM products and services. Development for example Watson is done by IBM Labs. A list can be found here: http://www-07.ibm.com/in/careers/businessunits.html

Re: Jefferies gives IBM Watson a Wall Street reality check

#187

Post by f4rker » Fri, Jul 14, 2017, 7:22 AM UTC

"and let’s be real"

If this is how you write, quit your job as a writer.

Re: Jefferies gives IBM Watson a Wall Street reality check

#188

Post by chii » Fri, Jul 14, 2017, 7:45 AM UTC

sgift wrote: post #159

Teever wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, in like 1975.

Or 2017. Things may change, but not as fast as some people hope.

if i ran a company, and the manager/*EO level personnel purchased IBM, i would've fired them.

Re: Jefferies gives IBM Watson a Wall Street reality check

#189

Post by petra » Fri, Jul 14, 2017, 7:47 AM UTC

thisisit wrote: post #186

deepGem wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What perplexes me is that none of these seem to affect their services business. 39 billion in services revenues is nothing to scoff at. I mean how can a company build shitty products like this and be a world leader in services ? Do these units operate like two separate entities.

It is actually a cycle. Managers in an enterprise are judged based on their ability to deliver low cost solutions ie "savings". IBM(or any service business) is very good at selling these low cost solutions to managers. We are starting a project and even with FTE's within the company, "consultant" has convinced management to hire IBM resources because of cost. The high sounding reason within the presentation twisted i…

So OK , you can do this cycle for some time, for a few people.

But doesn't the word get around ? does nobody in most enterprizes think long-term when investing ?

Re: Jefferies gives IBM Watson a Wall Street reality check

#190

Post by thanksgiving » Fri, Jul 14, 2017, 7:50 AM UTC

thisisit wrote: post #186

deepGem wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What perplexes me is that none of these seem to affect their services business. 39 billion in services revenues is nothing to scoff at. I mean how can a company build shitty products like this and be a world leader in services ? Do these units operate like two separate entities.

It is actually a cycle. Managers in an enterprise are judged based on their ability to deliver low cost solutions ie "savings". IBM(or any service business) is very good at selling these low cost solutions to managers. We are starting a project and even with FTE's within the company, "consultant" has convinced management to hire IBM resources because of cost. The high sounding reason within the presentation twisted i…

> But it is always that the end resources from IBM are even more incompetent. They end up delivering a product which is terrible. Even the final handovers and KTs are done terribly.

At an old employer who I'm no longer with, I asked why there's a part of the application in Java (the rest has always been in .net). They told me that an army of IBM consultants made that decision and now there's a part of the code in Java and it sticks out like a sore thumb.