[katana]

Kodak was used as the business model example of an institution that refuses to change and adapt, thinking they will always survive, in the film about big brick and mortar churches who are losing congregations and dying everywhere When God Left the Building. If IBM had remained committed to large mainframe computers, and I have friends who worked for them in the old white shirt and blue suit and tie days who tell me there were plenty of people arguing that they should, they'd be on the same museum shelf as Kodak.

[GraceG]

[ Kodak was used as the business model example of an institution that refuses to change and adapt, thinking they will always survive, in the film about big brick and mortar churches who are losing congregations and dying everywhere When God Left the Building. If IBM had remained committed to large mainframe computers, and I have friends who worked for them in the old white shirt and blue suit and tie days who tell me there were plenty of people arguing that they should, they’d be on the same museum shelf as Kodak. ]

Kodak is essentially a mirror of Big Government, but unlike Government, Kodak couldn’t make and change the rules to keep themselves in power no matter how inefficient and bloated they became...

[Original Lurker]

Mainframes, mainframe software and associated mainframe peripherals still account some half of IBM’s profits.

Mainframes are about half the cost per user compared to servers.
Not all businesses need the type capacity mainframes (I/O and CPU speed) they are capable of producing. No doubt!

IMHO, the competition forced IBM to change. They wisely answered the call.

I worked in the mainframe (manufacturer’s tech support) industry for 36 years. Mainframes are sweet, sweet machines. The fault tolerance to dynamic configurations are unparalleled by any other platform.