Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Jefferies gives IBM Watson a Wall Street reality check

techcrunch.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 295 posts

Re: Jefferies gives IBM Watson a Wall Street reality check

#251

Post by asveikau »

rdiddly wrote: post #166
matt4077 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's some feedback: sentences like "getting feedback is essential toward driving change" are the reason nobody likes IBM. "Change", as used here, is a noun based on the verb "to change". If your sentence calls for a verb, you can just go back to the original "to change". Something isn't essential "toward" something else. It is essential "for" something else. "is essential" is unnecessarily passive. Use active verbs…

Mostly good advice, except "Change needs feedback." No human talks like that. Change, as the subject of the sentence, "needs feedback?" What will happen when we take the feedback and give it to the change? What will the change do with the feedback? And what does the change need the feedback for? Not all brevity is the soul of wit.

I do agree that something was lost.

How about "for change to happen, we need your feedback"? I think that conveys the message and request accurately and succinctly.

Re: Jefferies gives IBM Watson a Wall Street reality check

#252

Post by bradley-holt »

zoeysaurusrex wrote: post #61
throwaway9980 wrote: post #3

IBM vastly over promises with their marketing. It is so frustrating to have to answer questions from the CEO about why we don't solve all our problems with magic beans from IBM's Watson. I understand that this is what they want. They want to drive executives' interest in the product, but I believe they do so at the expense of their goodwill with the tech community. Am I the only one who cringes when these ads air? Ed…

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,…

I work for IBM as a Developer Advocate, though my opinions here are my own. One of my goals as a Developer Advocate is to represent the shift in buying power from "non-technical management" (as you described it) to individual developers and other technical staff. If those who have to use or have to integrate with the software are a part of the decision making process, then I believe that this will result in better quality software. IBM is a very large company, with many different offerings. However, I think you'll see this shift towards a developer-focused mindset happening more-and-more within IBM over the next few years.

Re: Jefferies gives IBM Watson a Wall Street reality check

#253

Post by debacle »

throwaway9980 wrote: post #3

IBM vastly over promises with their marketing. It is so frustrating to have to answer questions from the CEO about why we don't solve all our problems with magic beans from IBM's Watson. I understand that this is what they want. They want to drive executives' interest in the product, but I believe they do so at the expense of their goodwill with the tech community. Am I the only one who cringes when these ads air? Ed…

I don't know if magic beans was overharsh considering the degree to which IBM portrays Watson as some sort of universal spanner for all problems.

Re: Jefferies gives IBM Watson a Wall Street reality check

#254

Post by Spooky23 »

jjoonathan wrote: post #119
Spooky23 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sounds like you trolled some kids passionate about a subject to argue for a technology and industry that you don't really understand. Were you prepared to compare the plight of the solar installers who fall off of roofs and get injured to the construction workers injured on the job during various nuclear plant construction projects? Did you count the various victims at Chernobyl? (Epidemiologists project at least…

> Were you prepared to compare the plight of the solar installers who fall off of roofs and get injured to the construction workers injured on the job during various nuclear plant construction projects? > Did you count the various victims at Chernobyl? (Epidemiologists project at least 4,000 deaths) The Banqiao dam killed 170k, and that's just the largest dam failure, there's a heavy tail following it. Wind and solar…

I agree that there is plenty of government intervention of energy. But I don't think there are other electrical generating technologies that require direct cash infusions of that scale when in a mature operational state just to remain a going concern.

The costs for fission are high because they must operate at peak capacity to recoup their capital costs. That was fine when electricity generation was 100% regulated and demand curves were steady. Now things are changing faster and we have market pricing for generation. Market forces price peak demand higher than base demand, and smaller, more nimble and cheaper generators are eating the lunch of big 1960s nuclear plants.

The risks and technology issues are also serious and very expensive, but we have pushed out the costs into the future and taxpayers who aren't born yet will be paying those debts. Nuclear advocates always ignore the costs associated with securely storing waste products for a period of time approaching recorded human history. That said, those costs aren't priced into nuclear energy.

Re: Jefferies gives IBM Watson a Wall Street reality check

#255

Post by abtinf »

johnnyhillbilly wrote: post #234
abtinf wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for the comment. I'm not very familiar with the Power team, but I'll find the right folks and forward your note.

Unless you are a master of corporate-fu: You're going to be so popular! :)

My life is too important to me to sacrifice my purpose for the sake of popularity.

Re: Jefferies gives IBM Watson a Wall Street reality check

#256

Post by batmansmk »

IBM offered a day of Watson training in San Francisco about a year and a half ago. As engineers working with classifications, we were interested to compare the results of Watson to our algorithms, but also look at the API, the communication, the community etc.

It was a classroom nightmare. WIFI not working, Bluemix required for all workshops not working at that time, teachers very new on the topic themselves (one confessed he only knew Watson for a couple of weeks before the training), no announcement, no nice moment to socialize or build up a community, no coupon given to try on our own after, ...

And... the algorithms didn't work at all. The sentiment analysis was classifying as really positive the sentence: "I wasn't happy at all by the service" due to 'happy' and 'all' present in the sentence.

Re: Jefferies gives IBM Watson a Wall Street reality check

#257

Post by sumoboy »

bradley-holt wrote: post #252
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,…

I work for IBM as a Developer Advocate, though my opinions here are my own. One of my goals as a Developer Advocate is to represent the shift in buying power from "non-technical management" (as you described it) to individual developers and other technical staff. If those who have to use or have to integrate with the software are a part of the decision making process, then I believe that this will result in better qu…

Non-technicals for most corporations will always make the buying decisions because it's about $$$. There is IBM's fundamental problem, "next few years" which means we're guessing today and guessing tomorrow.

Re: Jefferies gives IBM Watson a Wall Street reality check

#258

Post by hindsightbias »

nulagrithom wrote: post #98
abtinf wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Disclosure: I work in developer advocacy at IBM. Thank you for sharing your view. If you'd like to talk more about how we can better message our offerings, please feel free to reach out. I'd love to learn more about the kinds of problems you are trying to solve. Edit: yes, I know, this is a bland response to the parent. But change needs feedback. Edit 2: thanks matt4077

Not sure what part of IBM you're in, but I can speak as someone in an i Series shop. The problem isn't the message. Everyone already drank the kool-aid. A lot of the problem is just the shoddy product, but really it boils down to the culture. Put out comprehensive documentation _on the indexable Internet_ and not in PDFs, because for christsake if I have to open another Red Book PDF I think I might kill myself. Make…

>i Series

i has always been a garden wall and I don't think it's realistic to expect that platform to open up at this stage. That's why Linux on Power exists - tell your boss he/she would have better luck retaining/attracting people if they'd spin up some Linux lpars.

The older IT generations like i just the way it is.

Re: Jefferies gives IBM Watson a Wall Street reality check

#259

Post by lightbyte »

0xbear wrote: post #109
Spooky23 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It sounds like you trolled some kids passionate about a subject to argue for a technology and industry that you don't really understand. Were you prepared to compare the plight of the solar installers who fall off of roofs and get injured to the construction workers injured on the job during various nuclear plant construction projects? Did you count the various victims at Chernobyl? (Epidemiologists project at least…

Why "trolled"? Those are all reasonable questions to ask. This advocacy has real world consequences.

It's "trolled" because the OP clearly did not actually understand what he was trying to argue for. He was just going for "gotcha" responses.

Re: Jefferies gives IBM Watson a Wall Street reality check

#260

Post by [deleted] »

rdiddly wrote: post #166
matt4077 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here's some feedback: sentences like "getting feedback is essential toward driving change" are the reason nobody likes IBM. "Change", as used here, is a noun based on the verb "to change". If your sentence calls for a verb, you can just go back to the original "to change". Something isn't essential "toward" something else. It is essential "for" something else. "is essential" is unnecessarily passive. Use active verbs…

Mostly good advice, except "Change needs feedback." No human talks like that. Change, as the subject of the sentence, "needs feedback?" What will happen when we take the feedback and give it to the change? What will the change do with the feedback? And what does the change need the feedback for? Not all brevity is the soul of wit.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN