IBM is now a professional services company. They have almost half a million employees worldwide, not considering the many thousands of contractors. That's 5x more people than Apple.
IBM is in the business of 1) selling people's time, and 2) selling some software, to justify selling even more of people's time. Hardware is not a priority anymore.
Those who have worked in professional services industry know there's a cap on how much you can charge for each employee. Maybe 2-3x the salary, which will get you to the $200-250K range. Maybe a bit more if you have teams with unique skills (e.g., lawyers, scientists, creative talents), but nothing even close to the revenue per capita that a product-based company commands.
Case in point: IBM just got to #1 position on AdAge's ranking of digital marketing agencies . Yes, digital marketing agency. A few years ago they weren't even showing up in the rankings.
Apple, on the other hand, is in the business of creating products out of hardware + software. That requires a much smaller scale, given that 80% of the manufacturing is outsourced. So when you look at the revenue per employee, you'll end up with much bigger numbers.
But a better comparison would be to add all the employees of Apple's direct suppliers. Just Foxconn, for example, has 1.29M employees and 40% of its revenue coming from Apple. Add it all up, and things start to look a lot more similar to IBM.
This seems to be true at the smallest scales of businesses as well as the largest ones. I wrote about the phenomenon among smaller businesses here: "In business there are very few true partnerships" http://jseliger.wordpress.com/2014/06/06/in-business-there-a... .
A lot of junior consultants take a surprisingly long time to learn this. Evidently a lot of large companies suffer the same challenges.
Apple has lost their mojo. The implication is that Apple has lost their way "post-Jobs."
When they partner with the company they used to poke fun at (1984 Commercial)...
When the big news in the article is: "Valley gossip has it that IBM issued an edict stating that Macs were to be supported internally within 30 days. Apparently, at some exec meetings, it’s MacBooks all around the conference room table — except for the lonely Excel jockey who needs to pivot tables."
Is this Apple ascendant to fill the power vacuum as Microsoft crumbles? I think it's actually Apple being assimilated into the larger corporate world where Microsoft was only ever a small fish, even in their heyday.
"Hi, I'm a mac, and I'm a PC." Geeks always knew that Macs were, technically, Personal Computers. But I think I can see cracks in Apple's claim to "think different."
Apple set a high bar with Mac, then iPod, then iPhone and iPad. When they haven't had a WWDC keynote I've bothered to watch in years...
I'd love to be proven wrong. :)
Beside the obvious problems with having to push that top-down when IBM already has so many Apple devices, there's the problem that they're late on Apple support.
They can't afford to continue to lag "the mobile revolution, which IBM has missed out on."
Then the Microsoft deal at Jobs comeback. They had issues, identified them and then luck or genius made them what they are. Except even without mojo, they're still huge so I believe they can't have a crisis reaction yet.
Maybe its the whole technology products that is in crisis. What is there to dream about ?
What? You did division of some trivially-obtainable numbers. Why do I care that you did this in Wolfram Alpha, and why on God's green and spinning earth did you need to put the answers in two PNG screengrabs, rather than just typing the answer out into a single sentence?