For a brief, maybe fifteen year period out of their 100 year history. And even those weren't big sellers. Point being, I don't know that it was ever reasonable to ask the "man on the street" what IBM does, and expect anything but a vague answer.

Hell, my mother used to program their 370s and System/38s (precursor to the AS400). I haven't asked, but if asked the same question, I wouldn't be shocked if her answer were, "wait, they're still in business?"

More like 34 years.

The IBM PC debuted in 1981, and they sold their PC business to Lenovo in 2005.

> And even those weren't big sellers.

Still, let's not downplay the impact that the IBM PC had on the industry.

Any time there's a conversation about computers, she'll pipe in with remarks about how "Compaq makes the best computers".

Ask people about any large company in their own industry and they would know at least one of their products or services, and that includes Goldman Sachs, Dow, or Cisco.

It depends on how "working in tech" is defined.

If you work in IT at a Fortune 500 bank, insurance company, telco, manufacturing company, etc. then you almost certainly Know who IBM, SAP, Oracle, etc. are. If you work for FAANGMULA and adjacent SV companies you probably don't especially if you are under 35 or so.

I don't think it is even controversial to argue this so long as we can agree that a company cannot call itself a tech company simply because they hired a lot of programmers and are paying them decent salaries.

A tech company is a company that makes most of their money selling computer hardware and software products (and to a lesser extent, services and support for software and hardware products although it could be argued that is a different classification but with substantial overlap).

Notably, it has to be computers, not entertainment delivered via computers, or ads delivered through computers, and not industrials or pharmaceuticals or any number of other "technical but not 'tech' as in computers" industries. Tech is and has always meant IT, as in companies that are in the information and computers businesses. Where programmers happen to work, make the highest salary, or be the most highly concentrated has never mattered.

Have you read how much cash Meta has burned on VR? Apple on its R&D? Nvidia? Amazon and Microsoft and the rest on cloud (that requires R&D too, they can’t just go out and buy it).

> The business model is 100% a media and entertainment buisness model for most of the companies on that list.

Nonsense if you read any of the financial statements, except for Netflix.

Your additional examples aren't really counter examples most probably for most people; you've just listed additional companies that are likely common enough names that no one else outside the tech/finance sphere really knows why the name is a known name. I don't see this as disingenuous, I see as an accurate reflection of the modern interpretation of many of these older companies. Apple for example is "relatively" old(er), but you can ask anyone what you might get from Apple right now and probably they can name at least one thing like "oh yeah they make good phones" or "I like their laptops."

My entire professional career has been in IT/Programming, and the best I can tell you about what IBM offers is "eh, you can pay a ton for a contract for some server hardware/software. Hardware support is fine, but the rest is a dice roll on what you're actually getting for your money." I don't associate IBM at this point with a specific service or product I'd seek so much as just "this is a tech company that you pay a ton of money to and hope it works out for your project".

Though I will give them credit for their LTO tape hardware -- that is solid and straight forward enough for my tastes.

My personal experience, half the time I talk to IBM sales team or even their engineering team, I end up with far more questions than answers, and I get the distinct impression I'm offending the IBM rep for even questioning what they're saying, no matter how ridiculous their statements are. I know what the words they're saying mean and I understand what the tech is, but when I have practical questions about their design choices or implementation guidance and the IBM employees act as if they resent me for questioning them, I too wonder why IBM is really trying to accomplish in our meetings -- do they want to sell something that will help with my problem scope or do they just want lock-in? This question isn't unique to IBM naturally, but if that's what ends up occupying my mind after a meeting with IBM representatives, I'm quite certain it's an indicator that it's not something I want my team to get wrapped up in.

Edit: Changed "else outside the tech sphere" to "else outside the tech/finance sphere"

And how could anyone in Canada forget the Phoenix pay system. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phoenix_pay_system