I am not an expert in this, but I thought that Cringley was saying that they were cherry picking by underbidding -- which will be self-defeating in the end.
On Mon, Jun 04, 2007 at 01:28:36PM -0700, raghu wrote: > Michael, > I read those articles and I am not sure I believe what Cringely > claims. 150,000 layoffs? The numbers just seems so wildly exaggerated > and his analysis superficial. Here's what Bloomberg says on IBM's most > recent quarter: > ---------------------snip > Even amid price competition from rivals including Hewlett- Packard Co. > and Accenture Ltd., IBM has managed to ``cherry pick'' the most > profitable deals, said Eric Ross, an analyst at ThinkEquity Partners > in New York. In the year-earlier quarter, IBM signed contracts worth > $11.4 billion to help maintain clients' computer systems. > > http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aTbaVjjedIMI > > i.e. essentially the exact opposite of Cringely's claims. The true > picture is probably somewhere in between. > -raghu. > > > On 5/27/07, Michael Perelman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Both are relatively short, regarding how IBM is screwing up in its > > outsourcing and > > probably risking the long-term survival of the company -- at least as a > > major > > player. > > > > The idea is that underbidding its contracts and then cutting costs to make > > them more > > profitable is destroying the reputation of the company. > > > > > > http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_20070511_002058.html > > http://www.pbs.org/cringely/pulpit/2007/pulpit_20070504_002027.html -- Michael Perelman Economics Department California State University Chico, CA 95929 Tel. 530-898-5321 E-Mail michael at ecst.csuchico.edu michaelperelman.wordpress.com
