> At any rate, the mainframe is a hugely profitable business for IBM. Only around 4% of the firm’s revenues come from mainframe sales. But once additional hardware, storage, software and all kinds of related services have been factored in, the mainframe accounts for a quarter of IBM’s revenue and nearly half of profits, estimates Toni Sacconaghi of Berstein Research.
Read that again. HALF of profits. A QUARTER of revenue.
Source: http://www.economist.com/blogs/schumpeter/2012/09/ibms-mainf...
If you have any suggestions about how I can phrase this in a way that makes you both comfortable, and that still makes it clear that I do not believe you have any business speaking on this subject, then I am 100% happy to listen to you. :)
I'm sure you're otherwise intelligent, but this is an area where you should probably just listen.
You first write:
"The mainframe market is still $10B" and then
"the mainframe accounts for a quarter of IBM’s revenue" (that would be about $25B).
Which one is it? :)
$10B are spent each year on sales of actual mainframe computers. [1]
The article quoted in the last article claims that everything you sell around mainframes, like services, is a quarter of revenue.
Now, it's your turn to do something for me. Don't respond if you're not willing to read before you speak. I should not have had to explain this to you.
The mainframe market is still $10B, and the fact that you can't think of a good use for one does not mean that IBM's product lines are irrelevant. The market should be addressed by major hardware manufacturers, there is still profit to be made here.
The fact that you are comfortable as a "hardware person" saying things like this publicly is a pretty clear indication that your world is much, much smaller than you think it is, relative to the size of the real world.