IBM

AlbatrossGlobal7124

Definitely a solid choice! GOOGL's investments in quantum tech are promising. Have you looked into IBM or D-Wave too.

Smok3dSalmon

I think GlobalFoundaries has manufacturing plants in the US, but I don't know what the hell they're making these days. IBM basically paid these guys to take over their chip business. Common L by IBM. lol Trump having 10% of INTC is pretty compelling

ReadStoriesAndStuff

Ionq has revenue. Working product depends on definition, they can definitely do Quantum Calculations, the question is how useful that is to their customers - and I don’t know the answer to that. They don’t have nearly enough to make money. They aren’t bought for any of that that though. They are valued base on a deep patent library IBM and GOOG will have to license or buy as much as the chance they get cash flow positive.

Glad-Lie8324

Pure play quantum is 20-30 years away from being anything noteworthy when it comes to the bottom line. Stick to mainstream tech and if you really want quantum exposure, GOOG or IBM. The giants are way more able to pour money into research and are more likely to have a breakthrough and the ability to capitalize on it.

Chimaera1075

Google, Microsoft, IBM, Rigetti, D-Wave, and IonQ. Those are the ones I know about. Only IBM, Rigetti, and IonQ are selling physical hardware. The others sell quantum computing as a cloud service. None of the quantum players are making a profit on their systems yet.

Temporary-Alarm-744

How the fuck is google so down? It’s that call center subcontinental CEO. They beat Tesla in autonomous and IBM at quantum and match OpenAI . This market is a fraud and craves bullshit from afrikan Yakubian apes

Extreme-Island-5041

QTUM and let the ETF do it's thing. I have had the 4 pure plays for a little over a year now. I have CCCX/W and CHAC hoping for the mergers to finalize. I got in on QNC at 0.60. I have QTUM, GOOGL IBM and am eyeing Qantinuum and PsiQuantum on my wish list to go public. At the end of the day, you'll drive yourself nuts trying to keep up with each bit of news, rumor and B.S. hype. QTUM has given me ~150% in 15 months without paying any mind to it after making my initial purchase.

SchoolExpert6414

RIGETTI and IBM are probably your safest bets alongside IONQ - IBM's been dumping serious cash into their quantum division and RIGETTI's got some solid partnerships. Google and Microsoft have quantum plays too but they're buried in their massive market caps so harder to get pure exposure

gnusm

IBM.

moorhound

Fucking *stupid* Just give the money to IBM/Google/universities. IONQ, QBIT, RGTI - these are not usable technologies, never will be, and none of these companies have the money or resources for actual quantum shit.

AbilityAny9704

Expanding their collaboration with IBM

greytoc

Most people here are probably too young to remember or realize. But one of the biggest stock market crashes occurred in October 1987. Your question is interesting - but most people would have panicked - as I did following the Black Monday crash. The stock market back in 1987 is very different than it is today. Liquidity and microstructure entirely different. And friction to access the market by retail investors was much higher. Typical investments in 1987 would have been in companies that may no longer exist or have gone bankrupt. If you look at the Dow Jones constituents - stalwarts at the time like Kodak and Sears are bankrupt. In 1987 - many investors relied on mutual funds - and if I had to pick a fund in 1987 - it would have been the Fidelity Magellan Fund and/or the Janus Twenty fund. But even these funds became lackluster after the dotcom and gfc crashes. There is no such thing as simply buying and holding forever. It's a mistake that many investors make who think that stocks only go up if it's a "value" stock. People here saying things like MSFT are too young to understand that MSFT back in the mid '80's was considered speculative. There were other companies like Borland, CA, Paradox, Aston-Tate, Digital Research, Sun Microsystems, Apollo, Digital, IBM, etc. that was vying and competing to what Microsoft is today. And people suggesting Apple don't remember that Apple almost went bankrupt in the early '90s and was a struggling company in the late '80's.

Freshstart-987

As someone with 40 years in the markets… I can confirm. Stocks are more like NFTs than you realize. The bigest driver of stock price appreciation is federal monetary policy. Inflate the money supply and stocks go up. It’s that simple. “The rising tide floats all boats.” As more money pours into the economy, the rich and the smart siphon off as much as they can and need a place to store it. They want companies that are “too big to fail (ish)” and are fundamental to the future economy. That’s all that matters. At one time it was Woolworth. That was replaced by General Motors. That was replaced by IBM. That was replaced by Microsoft. Now Google. Them’s the facts.

VegasBjorne1

My brilliant Indian engineering friend told me to invest $1,000 in MSFT in 1987, but as a recent collage grad, I barely had $100 to my name. That $1,000 would be worth $2.3 million today! (Side note: my step-father would instead buy me one share of IBM around my birthday for few years, which really hadn’t done much but I still own the shares in physical certificates.)

XOM_CVX

IBM

therealjerseytom

80's time frame you'd probably be buying bonds and the obvious big name companies of the time like IBM, Kodak, Exxon...

CasherburyTales

It’s the new IBM

krongdong69

> “AI” has a specific definition oh look it's the "Generative AI isn't Artificial General Intelligence so it isn't AI!!!!" guy provide your random blog source for your very specific definition and I'll provide a dozen more links from every industry leader and educational institution showing that LLMs fall under the AI umbrella. Learn that language changes with usage you pedant. >[Intel: A large language model (LLM) is an **artificial intelligence** model used to understand and generate human language.](https://www.intel.com/content/www/us/en/learn/large-language-models.html) >[Stanford University: Large language models (LLMs) are a type of **artificial intelligence**](https://uit.stanford.edu/service/techtraining/ai-demystified/llm) >[IBM](https://www.ibm.com/think/topics/artificial-intelligence) >[MIT](https://www.media.mit.edu/tools/ai-glossary-dictionary/)

Minute_Plastic_350

Not sure Palo Alto’s. I just bought cyber arch in July so that has to go through approvals and then integration, not sure Tesla either. Oracle maybe alphabet maybe Amazon maybe. Could be IBM or Broadcom.

HighlightFeeling4118

I had leaps that I cashed out that were absolute homers. IBM, pltr, rddit and micron. 2025 was my best options year by far. Mostly due to liberation day I ate up that dip with a shit eating grin on me face

Amazing-Jury-6886

I wish I'd done that starting in the 80s. I'd have msft, Oracle, IBM, Google. Could have retired by now

12AngryMohawk

Money has no religion, no ethics, no morals. Just check IBM who is one of the biggest companies who favored Hitler.

BJabs

Support for a company with \~0 revenue? All the major money flowing into quantum has been to hedge against NVDA; they don't care what the quantum valuation is, they just want to put money there to check the box. Shorting it is a play that the institutionals will find a different shiny object to hedge with (photonics?) and/or that they will realize quantum, as a best case scenario, is 10 years out, for which the spoils will go to IBM or Google, not the dedicated quantum companies.

Many_Easy

I absolutely loved and can relate to your quote - ***Siemans' board announcing "nothing will change. Isn't that right Hans, Jürgen, Klaus?"*** I too spent some time with IBM in Armonk during John Akers last days around 1991 and his famous summer email. I fondly remember wearing a non-white shirt (pink) to work one day and getting quite a few comments from my boss and colleagues about fitting in. I also lived in Boca Raton and knew many Siemens employees that frequently mentioned lack of diversity at the top and their Boca team. There were so many great companies in the tech space in Boca back then. MITEL also comes to mind as a popular Boca company (HQ was in Ottawa) back then.

dena2410

today you have Google meta and co, back then IBM etc. You could see that the internet will revolutionize the world, but it got overhyped. It still needed some tweaks, like better hardware, speed, stuff like AJAX that made doomscrolling possible withouth the page reloading after every click.... thats what is going to be needed in the AI space. Cost per Token has to go down, especially for Agentic AI. and we need to come up with some solutions from an engineering standpoint of making the AI more trustworthy, like guardrails etc etc, After the dot-com bubble burst, the market got rinsed. Thats whats going to happen to the AI world i guess, hence i believe the dot-com era comparisons are pretty accurate. Next Question would be, if AI automates the ish out of everything, what kind of an effect will it have on the economy / companies? As any company then wants to have the same efficiency gains...Will it have a deflationary effect overall, or will it continue to have an effect like Automation had in the past decades, meaning no deflationary effect just more productivity. The Internet on the other side opened up a whole new market on the other side.

figuring_ItOut12

I've seen some of what you're talking about. I haven't noticed misogyny or clear bigotry. Anyway I'm not defending the guy. He seems sincere and the type to let things fall as they may. I think his skepticism of the Trump glazing here recently is well founded. I think it is fair to point out monocultures. White folks aren't the only culture that prioritize people who look like them. In my industry (high tech) before I retired I worked with folks from literally every country on the planet, and have had since the mid 1980s. Indian caste culture may have been outlawed in India but it is still very much baked into the minds of older folks. I've seen too many examples of folks who emigrated from the mother country and can't let go of old beliefs. There was an old joke when I was with IBM in the very early 1990s when sold they its Rolm telecommunications division to Siemens. Siemans' board announcing "nothing will change. Isn't that right Hans, Jürgen, Klaus?" I'm not someone who focuses much on ethnicity as hammer and anvil. I think the US progressive focus on enforced diversity as "equity" is self-defeating especially in this space. Cory Booker is a good example of when perfect is the enemy of the good.

emperorjoe

He also changed the list. Visa wasn't there before. Same with Disney. There is no stock worth holding for 10+ years in the technology sector. The sector changes too fast, and quality companies get destroyed by failing to be innovative. Perfect examples are the thousands of failed companies aol, IBM, Intel, etc. A good company today can easily be apple and Microsoft of the early 2000s when nobody wanted to own them and nobody had any hope they would recover or continue existing.

BarryBurkman

Good thing I’m counter balanced with 150k of google/boeing/MSFT/IBM etcetera

ForsakenRacism

Is there any examples in tech where the first big company actually went on and held that role? We aren’t all using IBM phones.

elonzucks

My experience is not in a product where they compete with the likes of IBM, so not sure.

Powerful-Plum-6473

Oh really? More than IBM and others?

HBAR_10_DOLLARS

Look into HBAR. Check out the Hedera Council - the network is legally owned by Google, Dell, IBM, etc.

AmericanScream

> We're so early. #Crypto Talking Point #15 (potential) "**It's still early!**" / **"Blockchain technology has potential"** , **"Let's call it 'DLT' Distributed Ledger Technology this month and pretend it's different."** / **"Crypto is like the Internet!"** / **"Look here's a 'use-case!'"** 1. We are 17 (SEVENTEEN) YEARS into this so-called "technology" and to date, [there's not been a single thing blockchain tech does better than existing non-blockchain tech](https://ioradio.org/i/blockchain-claims/) 2. WHAT "technology?" Blockchain uses tech that was patented in 1979, called [Merkle Trees](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Merkle_tree). It's been known for a quarter of a century, and has very limited uses, because by design, the system isn't very flexible or efficient. Modern relational databases can do everything Merkle Trees can do even better than crypto's version. 3. Crypto didn't invent cryptographic technology - that tech [has been around for thousands of years](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cryptography) and its in use all over the place - having absolutely nothing to do with cryptocurrency and blockchain. 4. Truly disruptive technology is obvious from the beginning - sometimes there's hurdles to adoption (usually costs and certain prerequisites, but none of that applies to blockchain - anybody who has internet access can utilize the tech). It didn't take 16 years for people to realize the Internet was useful - what held it up were access to computers and networks. There's nothing stopping blockchain IF it offered any really useful service - it doesn't. 5. Finding a mere "use case" isn't sufficient. Some companies still use fax machines. It doesn't mean fax machines are the future. Blockchain tech must demonstrate it's uniquely good at something - and it fails miserably to do so. 6. Just because someone says they're "looking into" something, doesn't mean it will ever manifest into an actual workable system. Every time we've seen major institutions claim they were "developing blockchain systems", they've almost always failed. From [IBM](https://www.ibm.com/support/pages/ibm-blockchain-platform-software-reaches-end-support-april-30-2023) to [Microsoft](https://www.zdnet.com/finance/blockchain/microsoft-is-shutting-down-its-azure-blockchain-service/) to [Maersk](https://www.theregister.com/2022/11/30/ibm_and_maersk_tradelens_shutdown/) to [Foreign Countries](https://www.reuters.com/markets/australian-stock-exchanges-blockchain-failure-burns-market-trust-2022-12-20/) - the vast majority of these projects are eventually abandoned because they aren't economically or technologically viable. 7. As for the idea that adoption takes time, that's fine, but since Bitcoin's inception, and most recently, its use both as a technology and a payment medium **has continued to decline**. As more research becomes available, we begin to see [a multi-year, consistent, decrease in crypto payments over time](https://www.kansascityfed.org/documents/11707/PaymentsSystemResearchBriefing25HayashiRouth0924.pdf). 8. The **default position** is to be skeptical blockchain has any potential until it is demonstrated. And most common responses to this question are the other "[stupid crypto talking points.](https://ioradio.org/i/crypto-talking-points/)" In short, this "technology" has been around 17 years and still it can't find a single situation where it does anything even comparable to what we're already using, much less better.

AmericanScream

>People used to laugh and say, “That’s not investing, you’re basically at a casino.” Too volatile. No fundamentals. Pure luck. >Fast forward a few years and now the same thing is an “asset class.” ETFs, institutions, serious money. >Do you think it's still gambling or do you invest part of your money in crypto now? #Stupid Crypto Talking Point #8 (endorsements?) "**[Big Company/Banana Republic/Politician] is exploring/using bitcoin/blockchain! Now will you admit you were wrong?**" / "**Crypto has 'UsE cAs3S!'**" / "**EEE TEE EFFs!!one**" 1. Crypto was originally, "disruptive technology" destined to "replace the banking/finance system". Now with [the truth slowly surfacing regarding blockchain's inability to be particularly good at anything](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tspGVbmMmVA), crypto people have backpedaled to instead suggest, "Hey it has 'use-cases!'" The operative issue isn't whether crypto & blockchain can be "used" here-or-there. The issue is: *Is there a good reason? Does this tech actually do anything better than what we have already been using?* And the answer to that is, [No.](https://ioradio.org/i/blockchain-claims/) 2. Most of the time, adoption claims are wrong. Just because you read some press release does not mean any major government, corporation or other entity is embracing crypto. It usually means someone asked them about crypto and they said, "We'll look into it" and that got interpreted as "adoption imminent!" 3. In cases where companies did launch crypto/blockchain projects they usually fall into one of these categories: * Some company or supplier put out a press release advertising some "crypto project" involving a well known entity that never got off the ground, or was tried and failed miserably (such as [IBM/Maersk's Tradelens](https://www.maersk.com/news/articles/2022/11/29/maersk-and-ibm-to-discontinue-tradelens), [Australia's stock exchange](https://www.reuters.com/markets/australian-stock-exchanges-blockchain-failure-burns-market-trust-2022-12-20/), etc.) See also [dead blockchain projects](https://weh.wtf/34-blockchain-projects.html). * Companies (like VISA, Fidelity or Robin Hood) **are not embracing crypto directly**. Instead they are *partnering with a crypto exchange* (such as BitPay) that will either handle all the crypto transactions and they're merely licensing their network, or they're a third party payment gateway that pays the big companies in fiat. There's no evidence any major company is actually switching over to crypto, or that any of these major companies are even touching crypto. It's a huge liability they let newbie third parties deal with so they have plausible deniability for liabilities due to money laundering and sanctions laws. * What some companies are calling "blockchain" is not in any meaningful way actually using 'blockchain' tech. For example, IBM's "Hyperledger" claims to have "[blockchain design philosophy](https://8112310.fs1.hubspotusercontent-na1.net/hubfs/8112310/Hyperledger/Offers/Hyperledger_Arch_WG_Paper_1_Consensus.pdf)" but in reality, it is not decentralized and has no core architecture that's anything like crypto blockchain systems. Also note that IBM has their own trademarked phrase, "IBM Blockchain®" - their version of "blockchain" is neither decentralized, nor permissionless. It does not in any way resemble a crypto blockchain. It also remains to be seen, the degree to which anybody is actually using their "IBM Food Trust" supply chain tracking system, which we've [proven cannot really benefit from blockchain technology](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tspGVbmMmVA&t=2108s). 4. Sometimes, politicians who are into crypto take advantage of their power and influence to force some crypto adoption on the community they serve -- [this almost always fails](https://truthout.org/articles/miamis-mayor-went-all-in-on-cryptocurrency-his-constituents-suffered/), but again, crypto people will promote the press release announcing the deal, while ignoring any follow-up materials that say such a proposal was rejected. 5. Some funds/fund managers are buying crypto? So what. It's not like fund managers don't do favors for insiders/friends or never make poor choices. If some Harvard-adjascent fund buys BTC that doesn't mean "smart people recognize Bitcoin!" Not hardly. The exception doesn't prove the rule 6. Just because some company has jumped on the crypto bandwagon doesn't mean, "It's the future." McDonald's bundled [Beanie Babies](https://i.imgur.com/McdwlxA.jpg) with their Happy Meals for a time, when those collectable plush toys were being billed as the next big investment scheme. Corporations have a duty to exploit any goofy fad available if it can help them make money, and the moment these fads fade, they drop any association and pretend it never happened. 7. Crypto ETFs are not an endorsement of crypto. (In fact part of the US SEC [was vehemently against approving ETFs - it was not a unanimous decision](https://www.sec.gov/newsroom/speeches-statements/crenshaw-statement-spot-bitcoin-011023)) They're simply ways for traditional companies to exploit crypto enthusiasts. These entities do not care at all about the future of crypto. It's just fee income, and the moment it becomes unprofitable for them to run the scheme, they'll drop it. It's simply businesses taking advantage of a fad. Crypto ETFs though are actually worse, because they're a vehicle to siphon money into the crypto market -- if crypto was a viable *alternative* to TradFi, then these gimmicky things wouldn't be desirable. Also [here](https://youtu.be/P5LKZ1-6BWM) is mathematical evidence MSTR is a Ponzi. 8. Countries like [El Salvador](https://www.economist.com/finance-and-economics/2025/03/02/el-salvadors-wild-crypto-experiment-ends-in-failure) who claim to have adopted bitcoin really [haven't in any meaningful way.](https://reason.com/2024/10/31/a-week-of-failing-to-pay-with-bitcoin-in-el-salvador/) El Salvador's endorsement of bitcoin is tied to a proprietary exchange with their own non-transparent software, "Chivo" that is not on bitcoin's main blockchain - and as such [isn't really bitcoin adoption as much as it's bitcoin exploitation.](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28446794) Plus, USD is the real legal tender in El Salvador and since BTC's adoption, [use of crypto has stagnated](https://www.bloomberg.com/news/features/2022-11-04/el-salvador-s-bitcoin-revolution-is-failing-badly). Adoption continues to [decline in El Salvador each year](https://www.swissinfo.ch/spa/el-salvador-registr%C3%B3-en-2024-el-menor-uso-del-bitc%C3%B3in-desde-su-adopci%C3%B3n-en-2021/88736952). Also note [Venezuela has now scrapped its state-sanctioned cryptocurrency](https://www.foreignbrief.com/venezuela-to-scrap-state-cryptocurrency/). Now [El Salvador has abandoned Bitcoin as currency](https://ticotimes.net/2025/02/02/el-salvador-abandons-bitcoin-as-legal-tender-after-failed-experiment), [reversing its legal tender mandate.](https://www.france24.com/en/live-news/20250130-el-salvador-merchants-no-longer-obliged-to-accept-bitcoin). 9. Some "big companies are holding crypto on their balance sheet" - So what? They're just trying to pump their stock price to take advantage of the temporary crypto mania. It's not any more substantive than that iced tea company that changed their name to "Blockchain iced tea company" and got a bump to their stock price. It won't last, and it's a gimmick and not financially sound. The biggest of these is [MSTR whom critics are saying makes the company into a Ponzi](https://www.ccn.com/analysis/business/microstrategy-ponzi-scheme-bitcoin-strategy-mstr-saylor-btc/) 10. Case In Point: In 2025, the big announcement was burger chain Steak and Shake was going to accept bitcoin. The truth is, [the company is getting paid in USD and using a third party exchange to process BTC payments and give them fiat](https://www.nasdaq.com/articles/steak-n-shake-now-accepting-bitcoin-lightning-network-across-us-locations). Another misleading news story. 11. Other Big-Company-Crypto-Failures: [Kodak](https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/technology/a-flash-in-the-pan-the-strange-story-of-kodaks-ill-fated-crypto-venture/ar-AA1Krm7t), [Steam](https://steamcommunity.com/games/593110/announcements/detail/1464096684955433613), [Wal-Mart and IBM](https://fintechmode.com/news/business/walmart-halts-its-blockchain-plans-for-food-traceability/), [Microsoft](https://www.zdnet.com/finance/blockchain/microsoft-is-shutting-down-its-azure-blockchain-service/), [a major consortium of European corporations who pulled the plug on their blockchain projects](https://www.ledgerinsights.com/major-insurers-pull-the-plug-on-b3i-insurance-blockchain-consortium/), [Maersk](https://www.supplychaindive.com/news/Maersk-IBM-shut-down-TradeLens/637580/). Even though these companies discontinued any association with crypto years ago, proponents still hype the projects as if they're still active. So, whenever you hear "so-and-so company is using crypto" always be suspect. What you'll find is either that's not totally true, or if they are, they're partnering with a crypto company who is paying them for the association, not unlike an advertiser/licensing relationship. **Not** adoption. Exploitation. And temporary at that. We've seen absolutely no increase in crypto adoption - in fact quite the contrary. More and more people in every industry from [gaming](https://www.theverge.com/2021/10/15/22728425/valve-steam-blockchain-nft-crypto-ban-games-age-of-rust) to [banking](https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/us-federal-reserve-rejects-crypto-focused-banks-application-be-supervised-by-2023-01-27/), are rejecting deals with crypto companies.

Purple_Bearkat

I worked for an IBM subsidiary and trust very little they actually say. Good luck.

Throwingdartsmouth

IBM is by fucking far the best quantum computing play, with a lead that frankly is immeasurable and probably insurmountable for the competition. I'm converting 75% of my QC profits into IBM leaps and keeping the rest in call spreads for D-Wave, Rigetti, and Quantum Computing, Inc. Disregard if you hate the whole space, which would be understandable.

frerant

It's very clear that 99% of the people whining about this don't actually care. If you did, you'd already know that NVIDIA has been established in Israel for years. And it's far from just Nvidia. Intel's Haifa lab has been one of Intel's most important, and Intel has a massive FAB in Israel. IBM, AMD, Microsoft, Google, Apple, AWS, and plenty more have operations, many for decades, in Israel. And that's not even mentioning cyber security from Israel. If you intend on boycotting Israel, you're boycott the entire internet and nearly every computer.

frerant

You better also boycott: Intel, AMD, IBM, Microsoft, Apple, Google, AWS, and more. Basically every single major tech company has massive operations in Israel and most have had them there for decades.

Seienchin88

I hope you aren’t buying anything with tencent, baidu and alibaba in them either as China is one of Israel’s main investors and these companies all invest heavily there… And then we have: IBM, Intel, Microsoft, HP, Cisco, GE, Siemens, VMware, Redhat, Apple, Facebook and Amazon… Just on top of my hat… it’s quite impressive how much companies Israel attracts but they have an excellent workforce and massive investments into tech.

ryan1826

Guess I should buy a bunch of dividend paying IBM then

Kindly-Artichoke6569

This isn't a partnership; it's a strategic annexation. Nvidia is effectively capturing the x86 architecture that once defined the PC era. It's a move mirroring the 1980 IBM-Microsoft pact, where the junior partner eventually dictated the terms. So, adding to positions now makes sense. Because Nvidia just bypassed the hardware barriers that historically limited its reach into legacy enterprise infrastructure.

Niwrats

that's like buying IBM in 2005 ..could be worse.

TealIndigo

Did you pick apple and are you rich then? What if you picked GE (largest company in the world at one point in the 2000s) or Exxon Mobil (largest company in the mid 2000s). Or maybe you were an upstart investor in the 1980s who invested in 3 of the biggest innovators in the country and decided to buy Kodak, Xerox, and IBM. Surely you you be sitting pretty right?

Classic_Web5494

Broadcom functions as a toll-road for AI connectivity. That's why the VMware acquisition matters; it mirrors IBM’s transition in the 90s toward high-margin stability. Micron faces relentless capital requirements. High-bandwidth memory optimism ignores the reality that memory prices remain volatile and supply-sensitive. So, MU’s price reflects a perfection that history rarely permits in commodity hardware.

One-Ad3302

IBM.

ripvanmarlow

TSLA out obviously. Weirdly I think something like IBM if it manages to pull of some quantum computing coup. Potentially an energy company if they manage to solve fusion? Nvidia if there's a Taiwan invasion but also everything else will plummet too. If the AI bubble bursts it may lose value but I think it will find a new market in autonomous driving and robotics. Nvidia has had a few huge drops, 1st it was crypto collapsing - turns out that didn't matter, next was deepseek, turns out that didn't matter either - they are able to nicely pivot each time something potentially damaging happens so I think they are the company with most room to grow, which is lucky as they are priced very precariously atm. The main issue will be competition from China, they have a head start but China is going full speed ahead whilst Trump is crippling US businesses with his whimsical, on again/off again trade barriers.

HMonster224

I bought MU earlier this year knowing it was cyclical and initially planned for it to be a short-term position in my portfolio. Sold right before earnings to lock in my gains but I actually bought back a small amount today because it does seem like the old cycle may be dead or at least changing. If you're a current employee, seems like your colleagues should have useful insights to help you. FWIW, I am ex-IBM. Sold my ESPP shares last fall and missed it finally running up after years of holding. You may want to at least keep some so you don't end up with regrets.

AloneStaff5051

lol, forgot Ionq. It will be IBM or Google who will lead the quantum

HornyEagles

I’m not disagreeing with you - but the tech is here to stay and honestly is really impressive just how much you can achieve with these models as part of development workflows. Has it led to a lot of bullshit code in PRs, by god yes - but that always reflects more on the developer behind the code generated than the LLM itself. Regardless of what happens with the “AI bubble” LLMs are here to stay and will only get better with time. We’re still at the twilight age of this all. Who knows how efficient and performant these models can become. Let’s not forget what computing looking like in the IBM golden era and its impact on the business world then. Again, I’m not disagreeing with the points you’ve made, but I think you’re exaggerating how “useless” or counter productive these tools are, they really arent. Like with any tool, its user determines the outcome.

HubrisSnifferBot

That is similar to what Doctorow argues, but there is a risk. Once you leverage your monopoly power to acquire all the good new ideas (or drive them out of business) you either draw the attention of anti-trust regulators or begin to rot from complacency. Why should I think that the next 10 years will be similar to the last 10 and not similar to what happened to AT&T or IBM in the last quarter of the 20th century?

PitaGiroApOla

IBM

squirrelspearls

IBM

EthicalHypotheticals

Recency bias. Stay away from bullshit hype stocks. Just buy Cisco, IBM, Xerox, Kodak, AOL, and Yahoo

Defiant_Village8087

IBM

cwalking2

> CPU design AI accelerators do not resemble "CPUs" in any way whatsoever. A highly out-of-order, general purpose microprocessor designed for branchy, chaotic integer code implemented on an ultra deep-submicron process with full-custom circuit design and layout for critical components_can take 4-6 years to go from idea to package. This is what AMD, Intel, and IBM are stuck doing. 90% of "AI accelerators" are giant matrix multiply units implemented using an ASIC process for circuit implementation (_read: brrr verilog goes into synopsys design compiler out comes GDSII_). From TPU 1 to 4, Google has gone from a tricycle to a 2-wheeler (with a large investment in I/O). Their chips don't have 1/10th the control logic complexity which comes with general purpose microprocessors, hence their ultra short R&D cycles: > the TPU was designed, verified, built, and deployed in datacenters in just 15 months [(source)]((https://arxiv.org/pdf/1704.04760):) So, to go back to what I originally responded to: > the talent to actually design chips is so limited There's no shortage of the type of design talent needed for these chips. Everyone is just trying to ship glorified matmul units and praying they land where the market is headed by the time the chips come out of the fabs.

ooqq

I personally never would sell it. It's like selling Google search to IBM the moment you are #1 page on the entire internet.

Intelligent_Lemon685

RKLB, ASTS, IonQ, Ginkgo Bioworks (DNA), RXRX, ESS Tech (GWH), maybe LUNR, NuScale. Google is my base, IBM too - like the biggest quantum play. I will maybe add TMC.

olliec42069

The first smartphone is widely considered to be the IBM Simon Personal Communicator, which was launched in 1994. It featured a touchscreen, email capabilities, and various applications, marking a significant step in mobile technology.

BusyWorkinPete

Things have changed pretty drastically in the computer chip world. Intel used to be king, AMD could never get it together, Nvidia was just graphics cards, ATI was their direct competitor, Apple's chips were built by Motorola and IBM, and TSMC wasn't one of the big players yet.

foulpudding

Before the iPhone form factor, we had several rounds of smart phones that society rejected. Prior to the PowerBook form factor we had several rounds of portable computer that society rejected. Prior to the Apple II and similar IBM desktop designs, we had several rounds of “personal computers” that society rejected. My point is that AR/VR is inherently valuable and usable. Our movies show it, our fiction describes it, people on the cutting edge actually use it for functional purposes today, even with giant heavy headset form factors. The problem with it is with that form factor. Headsets are too bulky for most people to use extensively, AR glasses aren’t yet small enough or capable enough either. Once someone gets AR/VR into a pair of glasses that look reasonable normal, and that have good usable optics, having a pair will be a no brainer. As for things a “practical man” can use? How about a up display to find what you’re looking for in Home Depot and every other store you visit? Or the thousands of AR apps on the iPhone that are too hard to use because the require pulling out your phone to use them. Those become second nature when they just magically appear in your glasses. Imagine seeing where your kids are at Disneyland, or a store, even if they are out of sight. A calorie counter based on images of food you eat that considers bites taken and portion size, and that tells you when to stop. Or night vision glasses that are just regular glasses that prevent you from tripping in the dark. There are thousands of use cases for AR/VR glasses, but few uses that overcome a 2 pound brick on your face or a pair of glasses that last only a couple hours. Those problems, once solved, will unlock the value.

Ok-Association-4933

Keep an eye on IBM today. Certain days are much easier for getting a good read on the true sentiment of the stock depending on cyclicality and market direction. We’re hoping to see IBM start to pick up some gains from Oracle. If debt beholden Oracle is still good to climb , you could be sure IBM has many likes to go up over the next five years. The end of year is a good time to take a pause from looking at the same stocks like we will Robin Hood data centers and so forth. Don’t try to chase price so much as being open to looking at the next phase of the AI trade. In this particular case the market has spoken, regarding value companies. IBM certainly fits in with the value criteria at the market has chosen for 2026 . United healthcare fits since that category has already started to recover. And biotech have done extremely well over the last few months.

wegster

I had some oracle stock I bought around 20 years ago and just left it alone. Wasn't much, but something like 670% return on it. I just dumped it. I'll preface it with I don't often dig deep into financials, and am mostly in ETFs, but I've worked in tech for some time. Oracle and HP have both 'chased cloud' including when I worked at one of them, but few really bite (versus Azure, AWS, and Google Cloud, generally in that order of adoption). Literally I can see a new piece of software and call out - this must be an Oracle product, because it's unintuitive and awful, unless it was an acquisition. Kudos to Larry for keeping the money flowing and the company alive all this time, but I inherently feel they are still trying to find a post-oracle-db (which in itself is kind of a mess, also IMO) 'thing' to latch onto. It's not surprising they 'teamed up' with OpenAI as I keep watching them just trying to remain relevant. To me, they feel like IBM - used to be a pretty amazing company, but now, would I bet the farm/house/future on them? Hell no. If we look across their domains, I just don't see it. Yes, they still have some amount of oracle DB activity - most likely the same groups of companies that were continuing purchase IBM mainframes, e.g. some financial and big industries it's just too painful to move off of. Meanwhile, a good number of others have moved on. ERP and CRM - Their ERP offerings are awful. Someone is still buying them, but they're pitiful and a huge PITA for the users and for customization. CRM - sorry, salesforce and others eat their lunch. Cloud - already covered. a perpetual 'chaser' vs the big guys IMO. They have bought some companies, I think in healthcare and retail - don't know if they're big enough to keep much of the rest of the company afloat. They also have some stuff in the utility sector, but they're far from a market leader there either. Yeah, they sadly bought Sun way back and now own Java. I'm sure there's some amount of revenue there, but doubt it's all that much for a company of their size. Note they aren't trying to compete on the LLM/large AI model front, which is probably better for them as I don't think they'd hold up to Google or others working in the space, so what do they do - offer hosting and such to still claim 'look, AI!' and try to ride another wave to relevance, and does some integration into some of their generally crappy products. I had to evaluate an enterprise Oracle product for a specific purpose a few years back. Starting out at around 20+ possibles, I built out a pretty comprehensive evaluation plan and 'scorecard' versus weighted scenarios/plans we needed to solve for. At the end, there were 4-5 left and I kept Oracle in the running, mostly because 'older management' wanted them there. Numerous engagements with deep dives with all of them. Oracle talked a good game, and pretended they had some 'special sauce' akin to domain specific 'AI.' Without too many details, let's just say within 5 minutes I had the product massively embarrassing itself. The Oracle offering was dated and seriously outclassed by the others in the final rounds. We did not purchase the Oracle offering - with good reasons. TLDR: Dump it into index funds and be done, unless NVDA, GOOGL, or MSFT have big dips. Or roll the dice; whatever. ;)

Candid_Highlight_116

Most of the chips that aren't Intel AMD NVIDIA or IBM, maybe Apple too if you count them plus very few other old high end stuffs, have significant memory bandwidth impediment and don't perform anywhere near stated speeds They'd do the numbers if you were calculating the same x and y for million times and discarding the results, but not if your billion parameters were on even VRAM and you had to get them from the RAM chip to compute chip through the memory controller

txholdup

QC is why I invested in IBM last year. They have been working on this for years and they pay you to wait.

Bagholder147

Nokia/IBM/NVDA are the real quantum plays.

Turtlesaur

IBM is up another .03% I feel great about this long term Starla

Charming_Yellow5867

What do you mean "Of course you wouldn't know?" You don't know who I am. My first programming language could have been Fortran II that I learned using an IBM 1130.

FlipZip69

If I had a penny every time I have heard someone say this... Nortel, IBM, Enron and about 100 other companies that everyone thought had tailwinds but there was zero chance of them ever attaining gains that needed more growth then there are markets in the world.

Immediate-Result4068

Its actually better to take an "opportunity loss" and take a week off enjoy life clear your head so you can sleep then research and plan your next trades. You can't control your emotions if you are stressed. Emotions make for bad trades. size your positions smaller if you feel too much pressure about losses. Learn to read options tables they will tell you the expected move / volatility of a stock. stable ? JNJ Exxon IBM pick a low spot. put your money in enable dividend re-investment and enjoy your life check them each year. Fast Money is both earned and lost. Slightly more risky but you could do TLTW, USOI, and PFFA basically bonds oil and preferred stocks. USOI NAV has taken a beating but that's because oil has been. that won't stay that way forever ... TLTW roughly 16% Dividend not much NAV volatility USOI has been sinking with the Price of OIL but might be a good time to get in about 17% dividend PFFA stable and a 8 percent dividend. 10 years from now with no stress you will be happy. Wait for the next big 10 or 20 percent market crash and buy SPY or VOO or QQQ set and forget.

Ctofaname

All I did was explain why you're probably getting downvoted. You complained about downvotes on reddit. You then proceeded to highlight how you have no basis for what you're saying. I don't want to sit here and explain and entire sector and why things may be how they are because again its all noise in the short term and this is one of those non-serious threads anyways where everyone posts their latest bags or emotional picks. I feel like I've been pretty flat with an attempt at understanding this entire time. I will be honest though and say my last comment was a slight jab simply because if you are actually a professional trader, this entire comment chain would never happen because profitable traders choose a couple sectors to fully focus on and understand. Otherwise its pure gambling. Also I fully recognize RKLB has a fervent fan base. In another comment I highlighted that good investments can have a fervent fan base or the opposite and its irrelevant to the underlying company. It can help with momentum though. I look forward to when retail catches up to IBM for instance.

Ctofaname

LUNR will have a big 2026. IBM probably 2027 RKLB could have a volatile 2026 because neutron launch and the fact that launch grabs headlines vs space systems. RDDT will keep chugging higher.

Ctofaname

That's with every investment. No one could be sure nvidia would skyrocket or the like. But they did. Invest in good companies in sectors you understand. Don't let the vibe of who's investing ruin it. You can make money going against the crowd in IBM for instance or by going with the crowd in RKLB. But you have to understand the companies and the market so you're not functioning on vibes.

aliveintucson325

This is a bad idea: 1. ALL laptop companies are facing this issue 2. ISG is only getting more valuable. You think data volume is going to shrink? No way. 3. Michael Dell is a huge supporter of this current administration. One phone call is all it will take if stock price tumbles so far 4. P/E ratio is 16, that’s good for this industry. IBM is 36 for example.

Wh8yPrototype

Is this worse than IBM guy?

RocksAndSedum

The point I guess I failed to make was that it's odd to use IBM as an example of a failed company.

throwaway2676

lmao what a retarded comment. Since the iphone was released in June of 2007 (the actual date relevant to this discussion), apple is up 5900%. IBM is up 200%

throwaway2676

Steve is the reason though. Replace Steve's tenure with another Tim Cook and we get no iphone. Apple would be another IBM by now

Foreign-Package-4359

Yes, but their core businesses, applications and database, are not disappearing. They are growing double digits and gaining market share. They don't compete in those businesses with AWS, they compete with SAP and Salesforce and Snowflake. AWS, Azure, GCP were not taking from Oracle. They were, and are, taking from HP, IBM, Cisco, Dell, etc. IaaS is in addition to, not instead of or replacing their core businesses. 

Foreign-Package-4359

Oracle is worth two Goldman Sachs even after their 40% drop. You can dislike the Larry, but he is rarely wrong. You would have bet the ranch, and been justified in doing so, that IBM would beat Oracle in database. Oracle dominates database. Likewise with Oracle in Apps and now they are the market leader in SaaS ERP. If someone said I think Oracle will be winning all sorts of major IaaS contracts over AWS 5-10 years ago, people would have laughed. No one has made money over time betting against Larry.

Jaded-Ad-4675

What does IBM have to do with this?

justaddcatalyst

IBM looking good too

FarrisAT

IBM

jizzinmyeyes69

Can you give it to me? Just joking... unless you're feeling generous. Whatever you do, don't go long or short on a crypto meme coin with 1,000,000,000x leverage. If you don't want to reinvest in real estate then buy more gold. It'll fluctuate a bit and you may lose a little in the short term but your money will be pretty safe unless somebody breaks into your home and steals it. Buy stocks that have steadily increased over time, like Apple or IBM or something that has performed well for decades. Avoid AI focused companies like Nvidia and Palantir because of the future potential AI bubble burst. Go for safety. If you want to go down the crypto path then go for bitcoin but I wouldn't go any further than that. If you want more risk but more reward then invest in the altcoins AKA shitcoins but be VERY careful... You could lose more money that way than you could with a heroin habit. Good luck.

FullCopy

I hope quantum computing is a reality. I hope it’ll somehow get that IBM CEO to stop talking about it.

silicon_replacement

we never know the people who shorted industrial revolution in history, like telephone, railroad, IBM, for 2008, there are still some chance that govertment and FED can save the whole thing,

GoinValyrianOnDatAss

IBM was in the top 10 in the 60s. It is no longer in the top 10. Would you say IBM has not experienced exponential growth over the last 30 years it has not been in the top 10?

GoinValyrianOnDatAss

In the tech sector IBM and, more recently, Apple comes to mind.

AcademicStandard3701

WMT and maybe LLY, JPM, IBM

notseelen

I didn't buy Nvidia for their AI chips. I bought them for the big thing that comes after the big thing that comes after AI they have INCREDIBLE amounts of R&D money, which, with Jensen's leadership, will surely lead to incredible advancements they also have insane saturation now. they everywhere, in every system. Yeah, they could end up an IBM or an Intel, but that's the main risk inherent to the stock to me, and the specific behavior change that would break my thesis I'm not smart enough to know when they'll go up and down, and up and down. I'm sure they *will* drop 50% eventually...I don't need to squeeze every last cent when I'm up over double the S&P

AdPotential773

This is true, but the reason is also that the current titans don't rest on their laurels as much anymore. They are all way more willing to hire and fire as much as necessary than past huge companies from back when staying your entire career at a company was the norm and firing was only done due to serious financial trouble or as a punishment. Plus, current megacorps are way more difersified than past cases. Just Apple per example has a fintech part, a music streaming part, a video streaming part, a chip design part, a consumer electronics part, etc and they are probably the ones that are spread around the least. Google per example has gone from being a search engine to developing many different software products, being an add provider and now making even phones, cars, AI and chips. Older American titans like intel, AT&T, Cisco, IBM, etc were much more concentrated on a single market and crashed hard after they started falling behind on that market or got broken apart because they dominated that market too much. The current American titans resemble more things like the Korean chaebol or the Japanese zaibatsu which have been at the top of many of those countries' main industries for a century or more. There is a good chance that most of the current mag7 will still be huge relevant companies well into the 22nd century.

thejumpingsheep2

You are comparing new growth to established companies. What was IBM's PE back then? Answer: 30ish. MSFT was also between 30-40.

srfdriver99

> To the extent you believe in economies of scale, larger companies will always outperform smaller ones over long time horizons. This is why IBM is the biggest tech company, right?

turudd

IBM still does a ton of R&D though. Oracle just sits back on their licensing costs and shitty DB engine

dont_downvote_SPECIL

IBM CEO Aarvind Krishna’s podcast assigns “really low, like 0-1%” that today’s known tech will lead to AGI (artificial general intelligence) given the limitations of LLMs. These are why Nvidia Rubin chips are so important because then it will be feasible to transition AI models from LLMs to World Models

jedinatt

I'm sorry but how often do companies close their consumer branch and then reopen at a later date? That's a *big* assumption to make. Maybe IBM will get back in the PC game sometime soon, lol.

SidonyD

Centrus is tricky because their outlook for 2026 is not so good :( Nuscale and Oklo, it's not a reality yet ... Rigetti : good but not IBM and Google look better equiped to gain the quantum race.

Individual_Gap_77

Layoffs at target, Verizon, Costco, ibm and many others are due to offshoring. AI, 80% is only used as an excuse. My department was laid off gradually in last 3 years, while all these jobs went offshore. I am in tech, software engineer. We trained the team offshore. And in last 2 years, they completely wiped off the department. And they said it’s AI efficiency. No it’s not. Search about AMEX, Visa, Costco, Verizon, AT&T, IBM, American Airlines, Vanguard …. And 1000s of more companies. Offshoring is killing U.S economy

LFG530

Obviously, the weak guidance part is key in my comment. I would 100% buy a tech titan with strong guidance and prospects even at a 40 PE if the story tracks. I think Oracle is an overhyped software peddler with very mid products, they are not that different from IBM and should not command a large premium.

uncleBu

IBM is a real company with many strings of revenue and an interesting quantum agenda. QUBT is a scam and the CEO of RGTI has openly said they will not generate meaningful revenue in the next 5 years

Return_Of_OGPine

I mean, I went long on IBM back in 2022 at $125 and I certainly haven't looked back. I didn't even buy IBM for quantum at the time it was for the dividends. It's outperforming QQQ in my portfolio by about 3x since I bought it. Never planning on selling.