Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Virginia Rometty Selected As Next CEO of IBM

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the driving-big-blue dept.

IBM 131

itwbennett writes "IBM will start the new year with a new CEO. Virginia (Ginni) Rometty, who built up IBM Global Services, will be the company's first female CEO."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Get your breasts out (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37838438)

I'll guess she'll have to follow suit.

http://www.smh.com.au/victoria/get-your-breasts-out-ibm-employee-sues-20111020-1m8ut.html

Re:Get your breasts out (3, Funny)

Cryacin (657549) | more than 2 years ago | (#37838574)

Can't wait to see her welcoming email! Which should arrive in the next 6 weeks or so, when her copy of Lotus Notes finally finishes starting up.

Re:Get your breasts out (1)

MichaelSmith (789609) | more than 2 years ago | (#37841774)

Nine weeks. OS/2 has to start first.

Female? (4, Funny)

atari2600a (1892574) | more than 2 years ago | (#37838446)

I thought IBM purely consisted of gay successful men. That's how their songs put it...

Re:Female? (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 2 years ago | (#37838848)

Common misconception. Back in the 50s, when those songs were written, everyone was gay. The world has changed a lot since then.

Re:Female? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37839384)

Who says that she wasn't... *cough*... just a little bit more successful than the rest of the gay men? ^^

RIP IBM! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37838462)

RIP IBM! I won't be sorry to see you go!

A new CEO? So what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37838544)

Where is the news in this?

Re:A new CEO? So what? (0)

blair1q (305137) | more than 2 years ago | (#37838882)

have you seen her?

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jennagoudreau/2011/10/25/virginia-rometty-named-next-ibm-chief/ [forbes.com]

if that doesn't get the fapping noises going in your basement lair, you're no kind of nerd

Re:A new CEO? So what? (1)

Third Position (1725934) | more than 2 years ago | (#37839328)

That was a particularly flattering picture. This one, not so much. [itworld.com] Photoshop? Who knows?

Re:A new CEO? So what? (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 2 years ago | (#37839368)

That's not photoshop. It's simply keeping a 20-year-old picture on file.

For what it's worth, she's still not unattractive in the newer photo.

Re:A new CEO? So what? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37839818)

Yeah, she's not unattractive, she's just FUGLY. Damn that is one dried out and creased bitch.

Re:A new CEO? So what? (0)

Peristaltic (650487) | more than 2 years ago | (#37840630)

Damn, man, she looks like Nurse Ratched.

Re:A new CEO? So what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37842064)

Or Kai Winn [imageshack.us]

Ugh, here we go... (1)

nobodyman (90587) | more than 2 years ago | (#37840752)

I don't consider myself a feminist by any means, but I imagine it's a bit frustrating that a discussion of a male CEO rarely ever involves talking about their looks, yet it's one of the primary topics when discussing female CEO's.

Re:Ugh, here we go... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37840864)

That's because everyone on Slashdot is a dude. Go check out some chick sites. I'm sure there are plenty of women talking about which male CEOs they think are hot or ugly.

Re:Ugh, here we go... (2)

Nursie (632944) | more than 2 years ago | (#37840930)

99% of all male CEOs are fat old guys with multiple chins. Is there a need to evaluate them?

When we have had enough female CEOs, pehaps people will stop commenting on how old and unattractive they are too.

Re:A new CEO? So what? (2)

Ethanol-fueled (1125189) | more than 2 years ago | (#37839526)

You can see the anger stamped into her forehead, as if she were a Klingon or attacked by a Tostitos press.

Re:A new CEO? So what? (1)

Third Position (1725934) | more than 2 years ago | (#37840656)

As Oscar Wilde said - by the age of 50 everyone has the face they deserve.

Re:A new CEO? So what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37841790)

By the age of 50 Oscar Wilde had a nice rotten skeleton face going. Anyone who is going to make a commentary on specific ages had better have survived to be that age, otherwise anything they say is pure rubbish.

Re:A new CEO? So what? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37840594)

Who cares what she looks like. If you want pretty turn on the TV. What do you want, Kim Kardashian as CEO?

Re:A new CEO? So what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37839660)

> have you seen her?
> http://www.forbes.com/sites/jennagoudreau/2011/10/25/virginia-rometty-named-next-ibm-chief/ [forbes.com]
> if that doesn't get the fapping noises going in your basement lair, you're no kind of nerd

bitch please..

i am a nerd used to reading 4chan... slashdot is where i go when my penis has become too sensitive..

Re:A new CEO? So what? (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 2 years ago | (#37839820)

Any nerd can fap to scat pr0n.

This woman has the power to order the upgrade of Watson [ibm.com] to achieve sapience.

Re:A new CEO? So what? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37840618)

Fapping? To that? Your standards are beyond poor- What, did Cartoon Channel run out of Teletubby episodes, big guy?

Re:A new CEO? So what? (1)

gandhi_2 (1108023) | more than 2 years ago | (#37841536)

Looks like Val Kilmer in drag.

But seriously.... I'm sure she's a very nice lady.

Sounds OK to me... (1)

linatux (63153) | more than 2 years ago | (#37838548)

Never heard of her until 10 minutes ago, but sounds like she should be able to keep IBM afloat - unlike HP

Re:Sounds OK to me... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37839292)

If she was the head of global services, expect them to under-bid and force out everyone else in the business, but not do any of the work (or product delivery) required by the newly won contracts, because they under-bid so far they can't afford it. Also expect any service to be done by the lowest bidder... on EVERY SEPERATE JOB, not whoever actually has training/capability.

Re:Sounds OK to me... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37840380)

From what I've seen, IBM RFPs are 2x what everyone else bids.

Totally expected... (1)

elsurexiste (1758620) | more than 2 years ago | (#37840488)

You only needed to know that she led the Sales division. IBM always gave a lot of credit and power to its sales force, and its CEOs are usually those who held her position.

Re:Totally expected... (2)

ChrisMaple (607946) | more than 2 years ago | (#37841338)

Her college degree was tech, and she appears competent. What concerns me is she said "I deserve it", which is a very bad attitude.

End of a Era (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37838564)

And IBM begins collapsing in 3 2 1...

Re:End of a Era (1)

Third Position (1725934) | more than 2 years ago | (#37838670)

And IBM begins collapsing in 3 2 1...

I don't know if IBM will collapse... but their stock sure did in the last 1/2 hour of trading. Wonder if that has anything to do with this news item?

Re:End of a Era (1)

Fluffeh (1273756) | more than 2 years ago | (#37839180)

Not really. A drop of $1 over a shareprice of $180 isn't a steep drop. In fact, most the market did somewhat fall that day. Looking at the monthly trend however, IBM and Apple are the only ones that have had a significant dip over the last month (google finance on IBM [google.com] ).

Re:End of a Era (2)

bws111 (1216812) | more than 2 years ago | (#37839298)

IBM Closing price on Sept 23: $169.16
IBM Closing price on Oct 25: $180.36

I am not sure where the 'significant dip' comes from.

Re:End of a Era (1)

Fluffeh (1273756) | more than 2 years ago | (#37840148)

The GP is saying that their shareprice has sunk heavily due to the appointment of the new CEO who is female. I am saying that their shareprice hasn't dumped since the appointment. I did say that Apple and IBM were the two companies in the bunch that had a bit of a bad spell over the last month.

IBM shareprice Oct 14th was $189. Now it is $180.

Re:End of a Era (1)

bws111 (1216812) | more than 2 years ago | (#37840470)

That is the last 10 days, not month. If you look at the whole month, the price went up.

Re:End of a Era (3, Interesting)

funwithBSD (245349) | more than 2 years ago | (#37839238)

Not really.

It has been very volatile lately, going up and down several dollars for no real reason.

I am on calls 2 or 3 times a month where she is also on the call. She seems well liked by the technical side of the house and is very approachable.

Won't catch me calling her Ginnie, I stick to ma'am and Sir for VP's and above if we are on the clock.

Better her than some other female execs we have.

Re:End of a Era (1)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 2 years ago | (#37839566)

Lets see. They offshored a number of their tech jobs to people that were not ready for it. They moved hardware production offshore and then were forced to sell teh divisions to the same ppl that were stealing them blind on tech. As it is, I suspect that had Palmisano remained at IBM for another year or two, he would have sold Watson to China.

Sadly, rometty is not much different since she was at the core of the sell offs. The end of IBM was started 10 years ago.

Re:End of a Era (1)

Peristaltic (650487) | more than 2 years ago | (#37840650)

Yep. 10 years ago, my IBM GS position went to Puna, India. I was offered something in Armonk, across the country from where I lived. Took the package, ended the unhappiest 3 years of my professional life, and never looked back. What a miserable, miserable place to work. 7 managers in 3 years.

Re:End of a Era (1)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 2 years ago | (#37842152)

Sorry to heat that. I know others that got burned as well.

I worked for IBM watson (via Colorado) back in 1996 ( or was it 94?) when akers was fired and Gerstner was brought in. At the time, we were about to open source OS2. Gerstner killed that idea quickly, which bummed me out. However, while it damaged OS2, IBM was brought back to being a decent a company. I was gone by the time that Palmisano took over and glad that I was. That guy has gutted the company.

What does this mean for AIX and DB2? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37838588)

So what does this mean for IBM's major products, like AIX and DB2?

Re:What does this mean for AIX and DB2? (0)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 2 years ago | (#37838798)

So what does this mean for IBM's major products, like AIX and DB2?

You'd have to tell me what those are and convince me that they're still relevant before I can make a decision.
Actually, no you don't. Regardless of what you say, that decision will be "Nothing. They'll sit around doing what they do now, and eventually be phased out but it won't matter because anyone using them will have countless other options and was only using them because that's what they had years ago.".

Schizophrenic America (2, Insightful)

RobinEggs (1453925) | more than 2 years ago | (#37838608)

Here we are celebrating another newly minted female CEO of a powerhouse corporation. Meanwhile, with the other side of our mouths, we're constantly bemoaning the fact that most Fortune 500 CEOs are greedy parasites, not to mention the large minority who seem to be sociopaths (and not in a figurative way, either).

It reminds me of that small number of feminists who seem to view sexual liberation not in terms of respect, mature dialogue, and winning their freedom from chauvanism, but merely as the freedom for women to be as sex-crazed and/or misandropic as some men are chauvanist and misogynistic.

Perhaps we shouldn't be so proud of women breaking into a job dominated by assholes? Are we assuming that women, unlike the men with whom they successfully competed to get these jobs, will suddenly be nice people when they're the ones on top? I try to understand when people say the pendulum is still swinging, that women need to make further explicit gains before we can just call it all equal, but I still wish we could reserve admiration and outright celebration for simply people who do good things, rather than continuing to break it out into Men and Women.

At some point the lauding of the "first female" this and the constant keeping of score has to stop if you want to say you achieved real equality.

Re:Schizophrenic America (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37838840)

Your presumption is that it's about equality. It's not.
It's about women's rights and empowerment.
You get rewarded for having a vagina today, and punished for having a penis.

Re:Schizophrenic America (2)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 2 years ago | (#37839712)

You get rewarded for having a vagina today, and punished for having a penis.

And then you whine about it. Endlessly. How manly of you.

Re:Schizophrenic America (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37840024)

Yeah, well.

What's the manly way? Beat the crap out of her? Thats not really manly anymore.

These days it seems that all we have left is watching sports and drinking beer.

Women where I am are starting to like football, next they'll come for beer.

Re:Schizophrenic America (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37841518)

I know, right? Anyone would think they were *people* or something.

@GP: I find that people who view equality as a zero-sum game have rarely thought about the full implications of what they're saying. If you're framing the argument as 'everything women gain, men have to lose', you're starting from the base assumption that men *deserve that thing more*. "men inherently deserve jobs, political power, money, influence and the ability to make decisions about their careers, lives and bodies *more than women do*". Is that really what you want to say?

Or, you could think about it for more than 5 goddamn seconds, and realise that there are plenty of ways that the empowerment of women can benefit us too, and that if played right, can easily be a win-win situation.

Re:Schizophrenic America (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37840286)

The wages are still unequal, even for the same jobs, so I wouldn't assume women are getting better treatment than men that way.

Not at all... (1)

elsurexiste (1758620) | more than 2 years ago | (#37840518)

She was rewarded because she was the director of the Sales division. It's really common for IBM to grant the CEO badge to whoever led Sales. If an extraterrestrial entity had been in her position, it would have been elected instead.

Re:Not at all... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37841978)

Did you consider the possibility that she was put in that role to get her ready for the CEO role - as part of succession planning? She had previously held several other positions within IBM as the article notes.

Re:Schizophrenic America (3, Insightful)

blair1q (305137) | more than 2 years ago | (#37838914)

I think we're supposed to assume that since she's female, she's less likely to be a greedy parasite.

Unfortunately, Meg Whitman and Carly Fiorina have forever destroyed that stereotype.

It remains to be seen if Ms. Rometty is human as well as success-oriented.

Re:Schizophrenic America (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37840798)

http://www.megwhitman.com/

Re:Schizophrenic America (1)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 2 years ago | (#37839020)

Freedom includes the freedom to be an asshole. One of the standard stereotypes about women is that they're less capable than men in jobs which require making ruthless decisions. Now, personally, I think we'd all be better off if CEOs of both sexes were a lot less ruthless generally -- that is, if they felt some empathy toward and personal responsibility for the welfare of their employees -- but since that's not the world we live in, women have to show that they can perform in these jobs as well as the stereotypically nicer ones in order to be taken seriously.

There's a flip side here; a good friend of mine worked for IBM Global Services until recently, and his view of the management of that division was ... well, let's just say that I doubt he considers this promotion to be cause for celebration. Rometty is just as legitimate a target for criticism just as harsh as that directed at any male executive who slashes jobs while taking enormous raises and bonuses; this too is a victory for feminism, even it looks a little backhanded.

Re:Schizophrenic America (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37839722)

One of the standard stereotypes about women is that they're less capable than men in jobs which require making ruthless decisions.

And yet my dating history, as well as the dating history of almost every male I know, is filled with countless examples of women so ruthless, that Machiavelli would curl up into the fetal position, sobbing, if he had any interaction with them.

it is genetic (1)

bussdriver (620565) | more than 2 years ago | (#37839986)

female primates are way worse than the males; it has to be genetic and it also went on to the humans! females hold on to stuff for a long time and will do nasty things during or finally at the end of that time; won't even be a logical connection, just wham! out from nowhere comes some vindictive thing from the past. at least males deal with it upfront and get over it... that male aggression has a few good sides (just a FEW.)

obviously, there are exceptions, we are not totally run by our genes.

how about human teens? when stuff can still be acted out and self control is weak (that is before we jailed them for being kids, now they fear ...well if they think ahead at all they hold back.) The males can be split up in a fight; especially by a female -- but the fighting females can easily harm anybody who gets in their path. Seen it. heard about it from teachers. ask one, they'll tell you about it. even really upset males it comes down to a chest thumping power show even when elevated with weapons its mostly just a show like apes making noise and throwing sticks.. females will fight to the actual death; if not, they may harm or kill the other's offspring later. good reason to be sure and fight all out now...

Re:it is genetic (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37841620)

From what I see guys are more likely to be able to turn off the personal grudges/dislikes temporarily, in order to get the job done.

e.g. You may hate the guy but you will still pass the ball to him if he's in the right spot to score/slamdunk.

Women seem less able to do that sort of thing. I've asked some women about it and they seem to agree.

Perhaps all the guys who couldn't do this got themselves and their entire tribe killed when they didn't help their hated tribesman while fighting against an enemy tribe...

Not saying the guys are so great - many might still seek revenge later, but meanwhile there's a battle to win first.

Re:Schizophrenic America (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37839476)

It reminds me of that small number of feminists who seem to view sexual liberation not in terms of respect, mature dialogue, and winning their freedom from chauvanism, but merely as the freedom for women to be as sex-crazed and/or misandropic as some men are chauvanist and misogynistic.

Outside of strawmen arguments conjured by conservative nutjobs, what feminists actually practice thise?

What's even the point of adding this to your post? Are the fucking MRAs invading Slashdot now?

Re:Schizophrenic America (1)

RobinEggs (1453925) | more than 2 years ago | (#37840088)

I'm just pointing out that some gendered double standards are better dissolved by raising gender x to the higher standard we once enforced only on gender y, than by simply saying "Gender y, you can act just like those fuckers over there now!"

It's not some straw man; it's an analogy suggesting that maybe we should prefer men learn from the stereotypical woman in business rather than the other way around.

A female CEO (0)

baka_toroi (1194359) | more than 2 years ago | (#37838620)

This reminds me of Homer working for Hank Scorpio (terrorist guy) to help him boost productivity: "Uh... Work harder!"
What the hell will she do there?

Re:A female CEO (1)

Surt (22457) | more than 2 years ago | (#37838680)

Set the strategic direction for the company, make decisions that those below her are too afraid to, meet with the heads of business partner companies .... what do you think a CEO does in general?

Re:A female CEO (1)

baka_toroi (1194359) | more than 2 years ago | (#37838702)

Let me get this straight. So, in order to become a CEO, you don't need to have solid technical knowledge, you just have to be "assertive", "proactive" and all that crap. Am I correct?
I don't have a clue about the daily activities of a CEO.

Re:A female CEO (1)

Surt (22457) | more than 2 years ago | (#37839024)

No, at any company large enough to really warrant having a CEO, being technically capable of the work the business is in is almost certainly irrelevant. CEO is a strategic/interface role.

Re:A female CEO (1)

ChrisMaple (607946) | more than 2 years ago | (#37841384)

Yeah, Sculley worked really well at Apple.

Re:A female CEO (2)

bmo (77928) | more than 2 years ago | (#37839984)

>no technical knowledge.

She started as an engineer and rose through the ranks. Promoted from within. A rarity.

Straight off you assume she's another Carly or Meg. I think you should take your stereotypes and shove them squarely up your arse.

--
BMO

Re:A female CEO (2)

baka_toroi (1194359) | more than 2 years ago | (#37840292)

Stereotypes exist for a reason, but I certainly haven't given her a chance, so point taken.

Promoting from Within (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37838624)

She was once the 99%. Hired as an engineer. Climbed the ranks.

Why didn't the IBM board offer gagillions to some flash CEO from somewhere else?

Good luck Ginni.

Good riddance, Oinker Sam (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37838636)

To the tune of Jingle Bells.....

Driving us insane
With pay cuts and RA's
To the bank he goes
Squealing all the way!

Playing with our lives
Leaving tears and blight
Wouldn't it be loads of fun
to string him up tonight?

Chorus:
Oh! Oinker Sam!, Oinker Sam!
How do you sleep at night?
Why do I ask?
A sociopath
Cares for no one but himself

Oinker Sam!, Oinker Sam!
IBM is heading south
Wouldn't he look great
With his head on a plate
And an apple in his mouth!

Working overtime
For this ungrateful swine
What's a little heart attack
If it helps the bottom line?

No one to lend a hand
My colleagues all were canned
Our SLA's have gone tits up
Say thanks to Oinker Sam!

And, in related news... (0)

Provocateur (133110) | more than 2 years ago | (#37838640)

The world ends tomorrow. Details at 11.

I hope she breaks the trend... (1)

bogaboga (793279) | more than 2 years ago | (#37838718)

...of former female CEOs, who have all been mediocre (think Carly Fiorina and Meg Whitman). I wish her all the best.

Re:I hope she breaks the trend... (2)

Spy Handler (822350) | more than 2 years ago | (#37838742)

she'll end up at HP too if she turns out to be mediocre...

Re:I hope she breaks the trend... (1)

blair1q (305137) | more than 2 years ago | (#37838868)

If she was all that mediocre, she'd already have been CEO at HP.

Re:I hope she breaks the trend... (1)

Virtucon (127420) | more than 2 years ago | (#37839394)

Or running for Governor or the Senate or some other public office.

Re:I hope she breaks the trend... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37839692)

Na. I bet HP would be sold to a Chinese company at that point. The executives would rather sell out than go down with that ship.

IBM Services Company (1)

Mr.Bananas (851193) | more than 2 years ago | (#37838892)

The new CEO is the old head of their services division and oversaw the PriceWaterhouseCoopers takeover in 2002. I think this means that in the coming years, IBM will make a lot more money with a lot less engineers, thanks to their lucrative services business.

If you ask me, it's just a matter of time before the slow death of the server group accelerates into high-speed PC/consumer business style death.

Hold that stock.

Re:IBM Services Company (3, Interesting)

Virtucon (127420) | more than 2 years ago | (#37839360)

That was just one of the GSD failures. There was the Texas Data Center fiasco, which is now being re-bid.

http://searchdatacenter.techtarget.com/news/2240031466/Texas-rebids-IBM-data-center-consolidation-project [techtarget.com]

I'm sorry but IBM GSD is full of incompetent buffoons and making Ms. Rometty CEO will drive IBM into the ground. I would sell your stock immediately.

Re:IBM Services Company (2)

ThatsMyNick (2004126) | more than 2 years ago | (#37839664)

She headed IBM Global Business Services (GBS, sometimes referred to as IBM Global Services or plain services). It has little to do with GSD or the data center fiasco. I wouldnt start selling or shorting stock yet

More on topic, this was more or less expected. The GBS division has become the cash cow, and has grown tremendously in the last 5-7 years.

Congratulations (3)

msobkow (48369) | more than 2 years ago | (#37838908)

Congratulations to Virginia Rometty on her promotion. The glass ceiling isn't shattered yet, but it's cracking.

Is she going to be getting a 25:1 Canadian or Euro style pay package, or is she taking the hundreds to one ratio of many US executives that people are complaining about? The article doesn't say.

IBM is a great place to work or contract. I really enjoyed the time I spent working on a project with them.

Re:Congratulations (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37839872)

Correction, they're a great place to work and get laid off

Re:Congratulations (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37840938)

I'm very annoyed with this "the first X to do Y" stuff. Can't we just say that Virginia has the CEO position? Do we really need to go into all of the political correctness crap? Second, every time we do, we keep racism/sexism/whatever-ism alive just a bit longer. Third, females have been in positions of power before - positions more important than CEO of a company - and will do so again in the future. It is no longer a big deal. Fourth, it really cheapens the whole announcement by distracting the audience with the aforementioned BS.

Please stop. We're better than this.

Re:Congratulations (1)

msobkow (48369) | more than 2 years ago | (#37840996)

I'll stop when the companies who try to acquire patents on technology they did not invent stop abusing the patent system, and fanboys stop trying to rewrite history. You don't have to read what I post.

Like I care about the objections of an Anonymous Coward at all.

The IBM Way (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37839000)

I wonder if she'll be "getting her breasts out".

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/get-your-breasts-out-woman-sues-ibm-over-harassment-20111020-1m8ub.html

Next stop: head up the USPTO. (2)

jbn-o (555068) | more than 2 years ago | (#37839376)

And if David Kappos' recent move is any indication, her next big step is clear: head up the US Patent and Trademark Office when Kappos leaves. I'm guessing that IBM would love this move because there she can better serve IBM's interests against those of the public. Kappos, current USPTO Director, was former IBM vice president and assistant general counsel of "intellectual property [gnu.org] " law. IBM holds the most patents. First-to-file undoubtedly helps large firms like IBM because large firms hire lots of lawyers to file all sorts of patent applications. The more patents IBM holds, the more IBM can cross-license their way out of any threatened patent litigation [progfree.org] by threatening countersuit and then negotiating a patent license.

I had high hopes that she would ... (2)

WindBourne (631190) | more than 2 years ago | (#37839458)

be the next Gerstner. I just realized that she was fundamental to the offshoring of the company and the selling of the divisions as much as Palmisano. I predict that IBM is the next ATT and watson will be the next Bell Labs. Gutted for short sales in the market place.

Re:I had high hopes that she would ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37839488)

The stock is going to keep going up and up and up until finally the hollow shell of the company will collapse in upon itself.

When I Went Through the Orientation (1)

Greyfox (87712) | more than 2 years ago | (#37839676)

They said their priorities were their customers, their employees and their shareholders. In that order.

Since that time I've seen them outsourcing their employees jobs, and I don't know who are their customers anymore. I've seen them lose some remarkable talent to "early retirement" programs. I've seen them sell division after division that were core components of their culture and their business. At one time I felt like even when I wasn't working for them, I knew who IBM was and what they were trying to achieve. Now... I don't. I think they're some sort of storage company.

Anyway, I wish her the best of luck with her... storage company. I'm sure that she'll make ONE BILLION DOLLARS for herself.

Re:When I Went Through the Orientation (1)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 2 years ago | (#37839780)

At one time I felt like even when I wasn't working for them, I knew who IBM was and what they were trying to achieve. Now... I don't. I think they're some sort of storage company.

They still sell more big iron than everyone else put together, and there's still a lot of money in that market. How long this will last, it's hard to say; but people have been predicting the death of the mainframe for decades, and it just keeps on not happening.

Re:When I Went Through the Orientation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37840046)

but people have been predicting the death of the mainframe for decades, and it just keeps on not happening.

uh-huh. i suppose it has escaped your notice that system z nodes list for literally one fifth of what they did 10 years ago

let's do a quick comparison, shall we?

entry dell workstation of q4 2001: dell precision 340, 2GHz pentium 4, $899 sans monitor
entry dell workstation of q4 2011: dell precision t1600, 3.1G core i3, $629 sans monitor

now let's take a look at ibm's definitely-not-dying mainframes, shall we?

entry z-series box of q4 2001: IBM z900 model 101, 1x600MHz CPs, 5GB mem, I/O, HMC etc, $1,200,000
entry z-series box of q4 2011: IBM z114 model 2818, 1x3.8GHz CPs, 16GB mem, I/O, HMC etc, $75,000

so there you have it. dell has more or less tripled the performance of their basic workstation this last decade, and cut prices by 30%.
IBM, on the other hand, has seen similar performance gains but cut prices by 94%.

Look, I'll grant you this: some people have been predicting a sudden death of the mainframe, and you're quite right - that hasn't
happened. However, only an idiot (or an IBM sales rep, which is much the same thing) would maintain that the mainframe market has any kind of future.

Re:When I Went Through the Orientation (1)

bws111 (1216812) | more than 2 years ago | (#37840454)

Your numbers are wrong and misleading.

First, z900 was not an entry level box, z990 was. However, that may not have been available until 2002. More importantly, you can not use GHz as any measure of mainframe speed, because not all models run at full speed.

So, using the correct numbers and comparison between the same type of box, with a single processor running at full speed, we see the following:

2001 - z900, model 101, 239 MIPS, $500,000 (don't know where you got the $1.2M from)
2011 - z196, model 701, 1202 MIPS, $1,756,000

So, IBM quintupled the speed, and raised the price 3.5x, so price/MIPS fell about 30%. Using your numbers for Dell, their price/GHz fell about 55%.

BTW - the numbers you quoted for 2011 (z114 for $75000) is a model that runs at 26 MIPS. Comparing those numbers with 2001 you find that the price/MIP actually went UP almost 40%.

Mainframes (1)

qbzzt (11136) | more than 2 years ago | (#37840056)

The organizations that still use mainframes are up-time fanatics with business models that suffer when a system is unavailable for a few minutes. As a result, they're so conservative that if they were running the country we'd still be under British rule. As long as mainframes work, they'll keep using them rather than risk changing to a different system.

Note: I'm an IBM employee, but this is my personal opinion, not IBM's. Technically speaking, corporations don't have opinions, except maybe "more money good, less money bad".

Re:Mainframes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37840108)

up-time fanatics with business models that suffer when a system is unavailable for a few minutes.

What's wrong with NASDAQ's business model?

Go back to playing with your toys. Big Iron exists for a reason, not an ideology.

Re:When I Went Through the Orientation (1)

supremebob (574732) | more than 2 years ago | (#37839790)

Yeah... Ginni was my division boss when I worked at IBM a few years ago. I think I even met her once... she give our department a "major" award with a very "minor" cash bonus attached to it. Under her tenure, half of my department's workload was outsourced to India, China, and Brazil.

So, yeah... don't expect anything other than more of the same from her leadership.

Re:When I Went Through the Orientation (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37839798)

They are the 18th largest company in the USA. Their customers are most of the rest of the Fortune 500 list. They are the top seller of servers in the world. They make mainframes (zSeries), Power servers (p and i Series), and Intel servers (xSeries). They make point of sale systems. They make storage systems. They have $25B in software revenue. They have an enormous services business. They sold off printers, disk drives, and PCs, none of which were ever the core of their business.

Good Luck Ginni (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37839974)

No, really. Good luck. Congrats on getting the job and I hope you do well.

I really really hope you don't do to IBM what Gillard has done for Australia. It would be sad to see IBM go..

IBM Global Services is badly run (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37840002)

IBM Global Services is so badly run that customer have to sue them to get out of contracts:

http://www.zdnet.com/blog/projectfailures/texas-warns-ibm-on-failed-data-center-consolidation/10370 [zdnet.com]

And that's hardly an isolated incident. You can't believe how inept IBM GS is. Like, they have retarded people working as upper management.

No, I'm not exaggerating.

If this is the person who was in charge, IBM is so screwed. It will be fun watching them fail, as I have had to live with IBM's incompetence for years.

Post as AC for my job's sake.

Rising from Global Services (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37840374)

Oh boy!

IBM is one of the largest, if not the largest, outsourcing services footprint. Having the new CEO coming from that background and rising internally to boot.. It goes to show how serious IBM is in that segment of that market.

HP absorbed EDS (or EDS allowed themselves to be swallowed) with IBM in their target cross-hair. HP is very clear on this! Those were the days of Mark Hurd.

I'm not saying Mark Hurd is a great guy, well.. not from employees point of view. They were miserable under him! EDS acquisition was approved by the Board and executed by Mark Hurd's team. Then the schmuck had to go and chase a skirt indiscreetly. An expired skirt on top of that! Can't you go for a young thing and impress all of us with your virility?

Mark Hurd's replacement in form of Leo Apotheker was not exactly inspiring.Which was it? WebOS? Software offerings? IT Outsourcing? Couldn't make up your mind?

In less than a year, now we have one-trick-pony Meg Whitman. Wonders whether we'll see two-trick-pony? Dare we hope for more than two?

EDS acquisition gave HP a clout in the services market segment. IBM's their target. Somehow they lost their focus and IBM strengthening their position - that's where Ginni Rometty comes in.

Now two women in control of two of the largest IT Services company gonna face off. It's like WWE's Trish Stratus vs Chyna.

Hmm..

Ohh great she is a woman. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37840878)

But I will not be satisfied until we have a retarded trans-gendered, blind, schizophrenic as the head of a major corp. It is the only way to show the world that we value diversity. Also why do the retarded, blind, schizophrenics who are trans-gendered not have a figgin month. I mean blacks have a month. Women have a month. 'Asian americans and pacific islanders all have a month. We need to have a month just dedicated to the immense contributions that retarded, trans-gendered, blind, schizophrenics have contributed to society. By giving 'minorities' a month we are letting them know that they are just as important as Jewish, or white people.

Re:Ohh great she is a woman. (1)

ChrisMaple (607946) | more than 2 years ago | (#37841420)

Gee, 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue isn't enough, you want to screw up a company too?

Re:Ohh great she is a woman. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37841972)

I lol'd. Would mod you up but have lost the password to my account.

Great choice for IBM CEO (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#37841026)

I have worked with Ms. Rometty in the past and think she will be a great CEO for our company.

She was the second choice (1)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | more than 2 years ago | (#37841592)

Former IBMer Bob Moffat, who was head of the Systems & Technology Group, was being groomed for the top job. But he got himself involved in an insider trading ring. Not for personal profit, but some careless chit-chat at a dinner party about Sun's finances, which IBM was considering to buy at the time.

So he got canned, and rightly so. If you are smart enough for the top job, you'd better be smart enough to watch what you say. Ginni will be subject to all sorts of scrutiny by the press in he coming months. IBM has probably already checked to see what she has under her fingernails.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?