Talk:IBM

Section Reorganization

I'm thinking about organizing this article more like the Apple ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Inc. ) or Microsoft one: ( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/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)

Why not use the History of IBM article for IBM history? Keep in the IBM article only that history necessary for understanding/explaining/... the current IBM. Thus things like Unit record equipment and typewriters would probably not be mentioned (or one-liners at most) in IBM while the IBM 360 history would likely be there. The two articles would overlap to a small(?) extent. 50.136.247.190 (talk) 06:40, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

There should be a section under "Products and Services" for Security Software. Security is one of the 5 pillars of modern IBM (Cloud, Analytics, Mobile, Security, and Social), and bounces between No 2 and No 3 security software vendor in the world by revenue - this is very substantial, in fact it's more substantial from some of the other BUs listed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.134.97.68 (talk) 01:24, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

Added detail from Rometty at Council on Foreign Relations

See Rometty, Ginni (March 11, 2013). "A Conversation with Ginni Rometty". Transcript. Council on Foreign Relations. 

Quote in context: I think they're the new normal. And you know, we've got 430,000 people; 50 percent or so have been with us less than five years. So you see another — and in some cases it's generational; you see a millennial generation out there, and how they work and what they do differently, and every one of us are going to — the next workforce, it — well, you know, you see it if — around you, right? I don't tell you something you don't know. And so these phenomena absolutely change how people think, how they work, how they want to work, how they're going to interact.

72.244.200.127 (talk) 20:47, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

Perhaps a good addition for the Working at IBM section, but not appropriate for the lead (see WP:LEAD). —Eustress ^talk 00:46, 13 March 2013 (UTC)

I found a better home for that detail. 72.244.204.34 (talk) 11:39, 20 March 2013 (UTC)

Phrase added to introduction

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)

I believe the editor you're referring to above is me. Regarding the editing process here on enwp, note that I am following the standard process of WP:BRD, having reverted the addition in question and offered a rationale both in the edit summary and here on talk. (I did offer discussion of this issue in the section immediately above here.) If anyone's editing etiquette is problematic, it yours for re-adding the content when no community consensus supported such an action.

Regarding the removed text, as I alluded to previously, WP:LEAD states that "The lead serves as an introduction to the article and a summary of its most important aspects." I believe the phrase you are trying to add does not fit this guideline, as there is no significant discussion of workforce tenure in the body of the article, and workforce tenure is not a common lead item mentioned in the leads of other company articles on enwp. I, again, instead recommend you integrate the material into the Working at IBM section of the article. I hope that seems reasonable. —Eustress ^talk 18:22, 24 March 2013 (UTC)

I waited a bit, to see if any additional editors cared to express an opinion, but I guess this is just an issue between us.

As an unregistered exopedian, my opinions cannot help be discounted due to my lack of interest in becoming a member of the community of editors. The odds are made worse due to your particular interest in this article, reflected in your edit statistics, which indicate you are the article's most active contributors with twice the number of major edits to the article as User:Ian Rose, who is second in the list.

Citing WP:BRD as a "standard process" seems inaccurate; lets call it what the community called it: a "supplemental" WP:essay. As an IP editor, my good faith edits have sometimes been hurriedly reverted by accident, so the essay espouses a practice that is easily misunderstood by an IP editor.

As it happens, I accidentally followed that essay's advice (WP:BRD#Revert), which is to "try to respond with your own BOLD edit if you can". Instead of reverting my edit, and thus implicitly requiring me to try a third time to guess what your individual expectations are, could you take a stab at moving what I've tried to contribute? 72.244.200.81 (talk) 22:48, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Removed reference to an "American multinational" company

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

The above unsigned comment was apparently added on 3 July 2013‎ by Mister Tog, describing an edit to the main article on the same date by the same user. Comments: 1. Please observe the guidelines noted above, "Please sign and date your posts" and "Put new text under old text." 2. I'm not sure that the above rationale is sufficient to support the notion that IBM is not an American multinational and that it's status as an American company is merely a thing of the past. I would contend that the original wording is (a) still factual, (b) consistent with WP:LEAD, and (c) consistent with the current wording of the lead sentences in the articles for other large American multinationals (such as ExxonMobil, P&G, 3M, and Boeing). My suggestion is to revert the edit to restore the original wording, but I will wait for other opinions before making any change. -- HLachman (talk) 10:40, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

I'm leaning more on the side of exclusion of the word "American". What makes a company "American"? If it's location of HQ, then IBM would be American. If it's majority headcount, then it's not. —Eustress ^talk 15:47, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

This isn't entirely cut and dried in the corporate world nowadays. But I think it's clear that a company that is founded, incorporated and remains headquartered in a country is indeed of that nationality. Paul C. Lasewicz (talk) 19:29, 24 July 2013 (UTC)

Reverted. The only justification given for the edit is that if a company has majority headcount outside a certain country, it can no longer be identified as being "of" that country. This premise would imply, for example, that if I started and ran my company in, say, France, with 499 French employees in France (including all executives, finance, product development, manufacturing, etc.), plus 300 telephone support personnel in India and Philippines, plus 10 salespersons per country in 20 other countries, then it could no longer be called a French company. If that's what the premise implies, it seems unlikely that it could be considered an acceptable standard among relevant experts and professionals (such as in corporate law or relevant public policy circles), but if it is, please share. Until then, we have two in favor of reverting, one "leaning" against, and the original editor who has not come back to comment on the revert. So I reverted it. -- HLachman (talk) 22:44, 1 August 2013 (UTC)

2012 revenue

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)

Anti-competitive behavior

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)

Section on typewriters needed?

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)

expand from "In the late 1970s..." to include the 1980s as well (see supporting Wikipedia sources)

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)

Open source

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)

"THINK"- a fuller version.

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)

No. See Think (IBM) for source of motto. 50.136.247.190 (talk) 06:03, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

Big Blue

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?

• Geklauter Kosename ("stolen pet name"), Computerwoche (Germany), 1989-05-26

--Franz (Fg68at) de:Talk 00:04, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

From the article Securities analysts nicknamed the company Big Blue for its size and common use of the color in products, packaging, and logo.[6] - and it is sourced. 50.136.247.190 (talk) 05:56, 27 August 2015 (UTC)

proposed merge

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)

Um, what makes you think WWII only has one page associated with it? There's World War II, Allies of World War II, Axis powers, Holocaust, Strategic bombing during World War II, Atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, World War II casualties, and that's just WWII related articles linked in the first paragraph of the main article! If you look at Category:World War II you will see that there are hundreds of WWII related articles in numerous sub categories. Moreover, if you think that no corporation should have more than one page, you'll be sorely disappointed to see just how many pages about IBM there are in Category:IBM.

That said, IBM Global Services is kind of stubby, and probably could be merged into this article. Not saying it necessarily should be, but it should at least be linked, which I have done via a see also that wasn't there before. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 19:11, 27 April 2015 (UTC)

I think now that the IBM article includes information about IBM global services we have a better case for deleting the stub article. I'll see about moving more info from the stub into this article and propose a deletion of the IBM Global Services article Strawgate (talk) 16:57, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Location of Founding

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)

I actually just found a series of records from the U.S. Congress, which contains records of statements from IBM on its incorporation as CTR in June 1911. There are several legal declarations from the company itself, which state that incorporation papers were filed in the State of New York, and in Broome County (where Endicott is located), in June 1911. While other declarations were filed with the County of New York (i.e., Manhattan), incorporation was never filed there. Based on this, it seems as though the company was indeed founded in Endicott (or at least Broome County). Vmanjr (talk) 03:46, 12 October 2015 (UTC)

The earlier text re location gave the 1922 Poor's as reference. That's not reliable, things can change over 11 years. IBM archives are, well, somewhat casual. I found the same documents as those above. The CTR "Certificate of Incorporation ..." has the following text: "Fifth. The location of the principal business office is to be in the Town of Endicott, County of Broome, and State of New York." So Endicott it is. 50.136.247.190 (talk) 17:02, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Invention of financial swap

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)

IBM Optim and Optim Export Files

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:

To export a request from an Optim Directory to an OEF:

1. From the Data Project Explorer, expand the Optim Directory folder in a project.
2. Right-click a definition and click Create Optim Export File. The Optim Export File Name window opens.
3. Enter an OEF name and click OK.

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)

Image on the infobox

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)

Hello. IBM's HQ is much different in importance than other companies -- it only accommodates 0.1% of IBM's workforce, and leadership is distributed worldwide across more than 170 countries, whereas other companies are more HQ-centric. IBM Watson, on the other hand, is much more visible and spans all IBM business units; plus, there's already an IBM HQ image in the Headquarters and offices section pursuant to MOS:PERTINENCE. Additionally, in terms of precedent, there are articles for other large employers (e.g., Target) with non-HQ secondary images. Since the image field of the infobox is an optional field that template documentation states is for "a secondary image of the company (not the logo)", the image appears to be within the parameters and more well suited in helping readers understand the subject of the article. 190.223.56.137 (talk) 18:16, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello. Indeed, the article for Target uses a picture of a store in the image field of the infobox, but this is not misleading because this is an example of a typical store and Target is little more than his stores. On the other hand, IBM is far more than only IBM Watson. It is giving too much importance to this single product to put it in this field. I therefore request the removal of this misleading image of this field. --RaphaelQS (talk) 19:53, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Nothing misleading about it, for reasons previously stated. Request respectfully denied :) 190.223.56.137 (talk) 20:33, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello. We are in a disagreement. I explained why this is misleading. IBM is not reducible to the IBM Watson in any way. The consensus on the project is to use headquarters image in this field (with the exception of retail chains like you pointed out). This specific company is not a retail chain and I don't see any reason to break the consensus for this article. In fact, I see a reason why not to; this is misleading for the reader. I will now ask other contributors their opinions about this matter, but please remember that the consensus should not be broken by a single person and that the current state of the article is not a reflect of the consensus. --RaphaelQS (talk) 02:37, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Your only reasoning thus far has been that IBM is not reducible to a single product, to which my reply is that IBM is also not reducible to a single office building -- especially one that only accommodates 0.1% of its employees; hence the more broad Watson would seem more suitable, especially since already have an HQ pic in the HQ section in the body of the article and since there is precedent where other articles do not use an HQ pic in the field. Others are welcome to chime in here, and if you want to actively solicit other viewpoints, beware of canvassing and consider WP:RfC instead... but I think you're trying to enforce a rule where there is none. You keep referencing some WikiProject consensus but have yet to provide any such evidence, and my own search produced nothing. One size does not always fit all, and one of enwp's pillars is that "Wikipedia has no firm rules" (WP:5P5). 190.223.56.137 (talk) 13:12, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello. I can only guess why the consensus on the project evolves to be like it is today; in most companies of significant size the headquarters only accommodates a very little number of its employees, but this is irrelevant because the headquarters is the head of the company and don't need to accommodate most of its employees to the most important building of the company. Please remember that the consensus doesn't have to be written somewhere, if most articles in the project and most of the contributors in the project follow it, then it is enforced, expect if someone has a good reason not to on a specific article. You don't give such a reason. I explained -a few times now- why breaking the consensus for this article is misleading for the reader. I don't think you have anything new to say, so I will now open the discussion to other contributors. --RaphaelQS (talk) 17:18, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

International Business Machines?

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)

The "About IBM" page does indicate the full name under 'Contact Us.' The full name is also expressed in its financial disclosures. 162.197.25.57 (talk) 17:29, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.ustream.tv/blog/2016/01/21/ibm-acquires-ustream-behind-the-acquisition/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://partners.nytimes.com/library/cyber/week/091797ibm.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091218093727/http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/library/l-erick.html to http://www.ibm.com/developerworks/linux/library/l-erick.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

You may set the |checked=, on this template, to true or failed to let other editors know you reviewed the change. If you find any errors, please use the tools below to fix them or call an editor by setting |needhelp= to your help request.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

If you are unable to use these tools, you may set |needhelp=<your help request> on this template to request help from an experienced user. Please include details about your problem, to help other editors.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:33, 7 April 2017 (UTC)