Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

IBM Wants CPU Time To Be A Metered Utility

Posted by ryuzaki0 on from the from-my-cold-dead-fingers dept.

kwertii writes "IBM CEO Samuel J. Palmisano announced a sweeping new business strategy yesterday, pledging $10,000,000,000 towards redefining computing as a metered utility. Corporate customers would have on-demand access to supercomputer-level resources, and would pay only for time actually used. The $10 billion is slated for acquisitions and research to put the supporting infrastructure in place. Will this model revolutionize the way companies compute, or is this plan doomed to be another PCjr?"

4 of 511 comments (clear)

  1. Revolutionize? by Mike+Markley · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This won't revolutionize anything... I remember this when it was called timesharing on mainframes. The revolution was moving away from that model...

    1. Re:Revolutionize? by scoove · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This won't revolutionize anything...

      No, in fact, it may be a good indication the end is near for IBM, and the past decade of "reinvention" was only an anomoly. Clayton Christensen's Innovator's Dilemna has only been delayed.

      One of the things I like about Christensen's model is that it illustrates the fallacy of product normalizing on the top 5% of customers. Lucent, Digital, Wang, Nortel, etc. all fell prey to this issue. They listened to their very best paying customers and shifted more and more of their product design to please them.

      Think about what IBM customers need supercomputer timesharing access? Probably their top 10% - or less. Can these folks already access timesharing? Certainly. So what's the hype about here?

      It'd be one thing if it was a minor effort with big PR fanfare, sending a polite message to IBM's favorite customers that they think about them frequently.

      But designating this kind of money and strategic focus? Especially when the focus appears to be a large, centralized and proprietary model (which flies in the face of low-cost, decentralized distributive models e.g. distributed.net, SETI@Home, etc.)?

      Time to prepare for the fall... hey, maybe there will be some nice Enron-quality assets at the auction.

      *scoove*

    2. Re:Revolutionize? by snookerdoodle · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I agree. This whole business is so crazy: Timesharing with Service Bureaus that are now called Application Service Providers (ASP's). IBM needs to come up with a Truly Kewl Name for it if they want it to take off.

      I guess there'll always be some tensions here that aren't really technology per se: In this case, it's in-house vs outsource.

      Joe does an analysis that shows if he outsources all of IT, it will save $X,XXX,XXX, so they do it. Joe gets promoted. Three years pass. Sam does an analysis that shows if he brings all IT functions in-house, it will save $X,XXX,XXX, so they do it and he gets promoted...

      IBM and Microsoft make money no matter what. Kinda like lawyers. Oh, I forgot they ARE lawyers.

      'Sorry for the cynicism. ;-(

      Mark

  2. You're all missing the point by twfry · · Score: 5, Insightful
    This is a great concept. If you guys actually read the (many) articles on Sam's speach, you'd see its nothing like timesharing either.

    The concept IBM is going for is to treat IT as another utility. Instead of some small company having to keep an expensive IT staff and maintain their own computers/network/storage, IBM says that it will do this for you. IBM will essentially replace the IT department and let some organization concentrate on running their own business.

    The cost saving of such a model (if successful) are quite substancial and will save everyone money in the end.

    I think IBM is on the right track with this and they are the only company really positioned to do so.