A couple of weeks ago I highlighted how mainstream media like the New York Times, Fortune etc write overwhelmingly and fawningly about Apple, Google, Facebook and other consumer tech and largely ignore enterprise tech.
One exceptional journalist I identified was Steve Lohr at the New York Times. He often tackles complex tech topics and enterprise vendors.
But even he must get bonus points for working in Apple into his articles.
Not sure how else to explain his Apple and IBM Aren't all that different
It was 1984 when Apple ran its Big Brother ad and made a forceful point about how different it was from IBM. Since then it has had little need to focus on IBM (other than to occasionally recruit an exec from the giant). IBM itself has been separating itself from devices and hardware – spinning them off to Lenovo and other units and focusing much more on services and software.
Since Apple will not make its point, you think the NY Times would showcase how when it comes to services and software, how IBM has led the market with the equivalents of iTunes, iPhones and iPads. In services, IBM should have led the market with innovations such as optimized global delivery ahead of offshore firms. It should be innovating in cloud computing, agile systems integration, multi-tenant application management.
In software, IBM should have taken Lotus Notes ahead of where Microsoft and Google have taken their email/groupware products. Same with DB2, Tivoli and other products.
Has not happened
The reality is IBM is about scaling markets for mature products - with a sprinkle of innovation thrown in. And when it comes to innovation it is about leveraging others’ imagination. Go see its “Smart Planet” projects and see how little of the hardware and software comes from an IBM manufacturing facility. Nothing wrong with that, but that is not the Apple way.
So, NY Times: Do analyze IBM more. BUT do more hard hitting analysis on it. As for Apple, reduce the ink and if you are going to compare it to anyone, try Google, Sony, Nokia, Dell, maybe even HP. But not IBM. We are a long ways from 1984.