<< 1 >>
Rating: 
Summary: A fascinating read!
Review: I have now read this book twice. Not only have I read the book, I remember this time period as my company worked closely with IBM. One of the other reviewers said, "An amusing book that attributes IBM's success to a couple of lucky business decisions followed by endless blunders. Carroll makes alot of assertions about IBM but provides few facts to back them up..." Obviously, this person either works for IBM or did not know what was going on at that time. What Carroll says is true. Especially if you had ANY ties with IBM during these years, you will find this book fascinating. I have referred back to it many times.
Rating:
Summary: A fascinating read!
Review: I have now read this book twice. Not only have I read the book, I remember this time period as my company worked closely with IBM. One of the other reviewers said, "An amusing book that attributes IBM's success to a couple of lucky business decisions followed by endless blunders. Carroll makes alot of assertions about IBM but provides few facts to back them up..." Obviously, this person either works for IBM or did not know what was going on at that time. What Carroll says is true. Especially if you had ANY ties with IBM during these years, you will find this book fascinating. I have referred back to it many times.
Rating: 
Summary: With IBM's bungling, how could Microsoft fail?
Review: People who complain that this book is unfounded because IBM is growing and profitable forgets that over a decade ago, IBM was a stinker: the bottom had fallen out of the lucrative mainframe market, and IBM could not compete long-term in the rapidly growing PC/Workstation market. This book is a great lesson in how not to adapt to change. Luckily, IBM has pulled itself out, but at what cost? Imagine if IBM had got the PC revolution right? There might not even be a Microsoft today and IBM could have retaken its position as THE corporate super-power. Besides discussing poor management, I enjoyed the information and great anecdotes about IBM's relationship with Bill Gates and Microsoft. I cannot believe the number of opportunities IBM squandered to acquire, invest or eliminate Microsoft. It seems that IBM pratically pushed Gates to build Microsoft into the power it is today.
Rating:
Summary: With IBM's bungling, how could Microsoft fail?
Review: People who complain that this book is unfounded because IBM is growing and profitable forgets that over a decade ago, IBM was a stinker: the bottom had fallen out of the lucrative mainframe market, and IBM could not compete long-term in the rapidly growing PC/Workstation market. This book is a great lesson in how not to adapt to change. Luckily, IBM has pulled itself out, but at what cost? Imagine if IBM had got the PC revolution right? There might not even be a Microsoft today and IBM could have retaken its position as THE corporate super-power. Besides discussing poor management, I enjoyed the information and great anecdotes about IBM's relationship with Bill Gates and Microsoft. I cannot believe the number of opportunities IBM squandered to acquire, invest or eliminate Microsoft. It seems that IBM pratically pushed Gates to build Microsoft into the power it is today.
Rating:
Summary: Insightful and well Researched.
Review: This book is more about bureaucracy than IBM. It demonstrates just how difficult it is to remain on-the-ball in the face of rapidly advancing technological innovation. It also provides a rare and wonderful insight into the perpetual battle between the creative individual and the second-rate bureaucrat. If you loved Orwell and Kafka you're gonna roll about the floor with this one. More importantly, especially in today's debate over Microsoft, the book clearly demonstrates why a monopoly is impossible within the high-tech industry. After reading this book you will understand Bill Gates and realize just how vulnerable Microsoft really is.
Rating:
Summary: if you're in the computer industry, don't pass it up
Review: This is a penetrating and often amusing look at the rise and fall of IBM. It's dated, much like any book about computers that was published about seven years ago is obviously expected to be. If IBM is doing better now, this book might have had something to do with it. Things like corporate hymnals, the ponderous decisionmaking process, and the reasons for the failure of IBM's PS/2 line are all exposed in humiliating detail. As a former retail sales rep for an IBM dealer from 1988-1990, I can tell you that in that time frame the IBM I saw looked a lot like Carroll's portrayal (and completely turned me off about them). This book is worth a search.
Rating:
Summary: The Minuet of the Dinosaurs
Review: This very readable book is the model that Gerstner should have followed. Elephants can do heavy towing, or push aside obstacles; they can't pirouette en pointe. This book is the viewpoint of IBM by an outside journalist. It lacks a table of contents. The book describes the problems, it does not tell when or why it originated. Page 20 says IBM developed "a lush bureaucracy that prided itself on having a higher ratio of managers per employee than any other business around." Is this what they teach in business school? IBM's chairmen came from the sales force; if you can't sell it, there's no point in making it. The IBM PC was created from off-the-shelf parts so it could be quickly marketed; pre-defined interfaces too! Page 24 tells how Microsoft did an operating system: they licensed QDOS (a replica of CP/M), then bought it. It eventually made Gates the richest man in America. Page 27 tells of the management problem in creating software. Architects spent months producing detailed designs for software. Then masses of programmers had a hard time deciphering the hundreds of pages of specifications. More time was spent in communicating than actually writing code! Isn't this a recipe for a project to be over budget and behind schedule? Estridge's habit of shunning meetings, not returning phone call, and ignoring unwanted advice could set an example of a well-ordered project manager who concentrates on the mission, not the housekeeping. Page 37 explains why standards for PCs began at birth. Page 53 mentions the "fear of nuclear attack" as the reason for moving out of New York city. But other companies also moved out in the 1970s; the fear of a nuclear attack drained away after the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962. Didn't IBM build a skyscraper in the 1980s only to sell it in the 1990s? Didn't AT&T do the same? Page 87 tells how Gates got lucky when VisiCorp began to self-destruct. Those familiar with counter-intelligence operations may think of another reason (p.192). Page 97 says IBM never wanted to have too many people in one spot. Unstated here is the fear that nearly all could walk out to a new company (p.186). Page 101 tells that IBM used lines of code as a measure of programming; what did IBM use to measure its management? Microsoft rewrote IBM code to make it faster and smaller, then; how are they doing now? The last pages of Chapter 8 deal with the OS/2-Windows politics. There is no explanation as to why they didn't share the same application interface. Page 201 tells of developing a RISC chip; didn't CDC do this in the early 1960s? Page 208 describes the chip development problem in Burlington VT. Page 217 mentions the "golden screwdriver" and how quickly some machines were upgraded. Think ahead! Pages 245-7 tell of the PS/1 project: crippled so it would not compete with PS/2. Would General Motors restrict the sale of Chevrolets to sell more Cadillacs? Page 281 suggests Microsoft moles reported on IBM's strategies. Pages 301-9 tell of the changes in Lexington under new owners. In political history, this is like a revolution that sweeps away the aristocracy and lets the farmers and merchants rise to power. Does the description of the IBM bureaucracy remind you of France before the Revolution? Will anyone write a book to cover the last ten years as well as this one does?
<< 1 >>
| 
