|
| ▲ | rnd0 2 hours ago | parent | next [-] |
| That was completely accidental and they themselves tried to close the barn door with the PS/2 line in 1987 but at that point it was too late. |
| |
| ▲ | jacquesm 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | True, even so: They still make some pretty impressive hardware. They have access to fab capacity, they know how to make chips. They have the capital. If they really wanted they could do it. | | |
| ▲ | solyin an hour ago | parent [-] | | In what way is the IBM Spyre not what you're asking for? | | |
| ▲ | jacquesm an hour ago | parent [-] | | In a way it is, but I would see that as a starting point, not as the ready solution. They'd need to do what NV has done for their eco-system: fantastic libraries, a credible future upgrade path, easy ordering, manufacturing partnerships, the works. I figure besides the performance gap that they are at least 5 to 10 years behind NV with their present offering. But NVidia is dropping stitches and IBM should take advantage of that. I think IBM sees the Spyre as a reason to sell more Power hardware but that's just not where the industry is right now and I doubt it will be enough to create sufficient demand. Who knows, I don't have any insight in what they're doing there, but there is massive gap between A GB300 workstation and what IBM currently offers. At the same time: the RAM crunch hits all parties and that's a major obstacle as well. | | |
| ▲ | solyin an hour ago | parent [-] | | Yeah. For all the jokes we make about paperclip maximizer, we've figured it out. It's not paperclips, it's RAM. That's the thing though. Software is cheap with AI, but Nvidia has Cuda. If software doesn't matter anymore (it does) because it's so cheap now, then Nvidia's moat evaporates to IBM's Spyre. In reality "just a little bit of software" has inertia and cannot be dislodged quickly, quietly, or easily. cf Microsoft. | | |
| ▲ | jacquesm an hour ago | parent [-] | | That. And not starting every sale with 'call us' where they first want you to tell them how much you can afford to spend. I buy a fair amount of gear and if the sales process starts with some sleazeball sales guy instead of a mouseclick on a local webshop then I'm out. As for CUDA: I think CUDA is a formidable moat but I also think that that is precisely the kind of thing where the likes of IBM could (if they really wanted to) make things happen. They're already in the space with Redhat and they have ample knowledge about drivers and low level code. Putting together a team that either makes a drop-in replacement or alternatively, that starts supporting their custom hardware for the big players in the inference space (VLLM, llama.cpp and Torch) would make all the difference. They'd have to keep doing it though, even if the initial results were lower than expected because that market is not going to turn on a dime. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | exac an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| Respectfully, those people don't work at IBM anymore. The organizational memory doesn't last that long. |
| |
| ▲ | jacquesm an hour ago | parent [-] | | You'd think that with a 250K workforce and an active line of hardware including an AI accelerator that those people are still working there. I could be wrong, but someone has to be doing that work unless IBM in turn outsources it. |
|
|
| ▲ | quailfarmer 2 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| They haven’t been _that_ IBM for decades |
| |
| ▲ | jacquesm 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | I know. But: they have gobs of money, they still have some talent, they still have a hardware department that I'm pretty sure would jump at a chance to give NV a run for their money. This would require a massive long term investment and a commitment that I'm not sure they would have the stomach for. | | |
| ▲ | alienbaby an hour ago | parent [-] | | "they have gobs of money, " They do? They are a spec in the ocean relative to big players offering inference and training their own models. Pretty sure one thing they are struggling with is the money to compete successfully in the ai game this time around. | | |
| ▲ | jacquesm an hour ago | parent [-] | | 10 billion give or take, market cap 250 billion, 250K employees. That's not a 'spec in the ocean' by normal standards, and IBM is a mature company, not an inflated balloon. |
|
|
|
|
| ▲ | j16sdiz an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It's the "PC-compatible" hardware make those affordable, not PC. |
|
| ▲ | dansquizsoft 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| > They made the PC revolution possible Yeah they were only half a decade late to the PC revolution back in the day... |
| |
| ▲ | wmf 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | They weren't really late. In many people's minds IBM validated the concept of the PC. | | |
| ▲ | jacquesm 2 hours ago | parent [-] | | When that happened I'd been working at Tandy (EU version of Radio Shack) for a while and even though we sold computers they were not taken serious until IBM came along and then suddenly we couldn't supply them fast enough. | | |
| ▲ | spopejoy an hour ago | parent [-] | | Was Tandy only EU? In the TRS-80 days the name came up a lot, although maybe just because of the acronym ... 6809E was a good time | | |
| ▲ | jacquesm an hour ago | parent [-] | | Yes, that was the first time I had a 'proper' processor to play with. A Dragon 32 (CoCo clone from the UK). I've never seen Tandy used outside of Europe but then again, I had not traveled as much then as now so it's definitely possible they used the brand on other continents as well. I wonder how many trees were cut for those catalogs :) |
|
|
|
|
