Microsoft had a tremendous headcount as well. But I think that there is a subtle and important difference. Developers at Microsoft see themselves as product creators - and within every creator is a passion for the craft that good leadership can unlock. IBM, to my knowledge, has a much larger proportion of their headcount who are "contract maintainers" - doing contracted work where their KPIs implicitly optimize for "how long can we keep/grow this contract" rather than "how good is the product created."

IBM has a cultural issue that will take far more than strong leadership to change - starting to change those incentives would require a disruption to IBM's business model that could truly hurt short-term financial performance, way more than Microsoft's "hey let's start releasing dev tools for Mac/Linux in ways that don't actually cannibalize PC sales - it's not like those devs were going to switch to Windows anyways - but do make it easy for them to become long-term Azure users."

And rather than fighting on the dev-tools turf, they're trying to gain mindshare with AI-as-a-service for people who aren't really innovating in AI. I'm looking at the icons in my Mac's Dock right now, and Microsoft's winning a ton of them with best-in-class IDEs and productivity software. Watson isn't in every startup developer's Dock. Now, if IBM bought Tableau and moved Cognos in that direction, adding generous free usage tiers, maybe they get Watson-branded icons on that Dock? But I doubt this happens any time soon.

Satya did amazing things for Microsoft. It shows that recovery is possible, even for a behemoth like IBM.

However, like you said - brilliant fellows aside, IBM employees as a whole are much less technical.Most would never pass a tech interview at FAANG.

> Maybe I'm being naive but what do their 350,000 employees actually do?

I used to think it was "make chips", but they contracted that out a few years back. IT outsourcing is a big part of it, which tends to drive up staff numbers much faster than in-house projects. They're also still fairly big in business tech like POS systems, although I think that's been shrinking?

(I suppose the other answer is "IBM doesn't know either", given that they've made huge staff cuts to a lot of their older divisions.)

IBM is primarily a service company. They do turnkey software development for large, clueless clients with deep pockets, such as governments across the world.