Globalization at Critical Mass, cause for concern?

[Dari]

Last week, I went on my maiden voyage to Mardi Gras in New Orleans, Louisana. After Mardi Gras, my gf and I went down to Dallas, Texas where we held a farewell private party for a college buddy returning to her native Brazil. There, she plans on starting a consulting business. She mentioned that IBM has been in touch with her to tout their "One Stop Shop," as she would put it. Basically, this means that the company provides all the software, hardware, support, and business-related consulting services that she might need later down the road. She thinks that this is a great idea because it will help her tremendously in the short run by helping setup her basic infrastructure, including any loans. I advised her against this idea because relying on one company was a dangerous idea because not only was she putting all her eggs in one basket but that she would be beholden to IBM's pace and prices, with little room to (re-)negotiate. I told her that federalism was a much better idea to centralization that may be more expensive in the short-run but provides better security and freedom overall. She seemed dissapointed at my opinion but thought it was a good one.

This brings me to what IBM is currently doing and what would happen if other companies followed suit. It seems that the company wants to be the end-all for everything. Not only do they want you to buy their hardware and software, the company is also trying to dig deeper into the enterprise by advocating their Global Services arm. If you check out their website (IBM), you'll see that they provide consulting in almost everything, from finance to petroleum to retail. Furthermore, they also want to companies to outsource their basic research to IBM. Examples of this are the "cell" chips for Playstation3 and the other chip for Nintendo's next-generation video game system.

All this begs the age-old question of federalism versus centralization and security.
What makes a company when most of its tasks, including formation of intellectual property, are outsourced to one company?
Is it really a good idea to have IBM become major organ within the corporate creature?
What happens to data integrity and ownership of IP when the two part ways?
Who's ultimately responsible when security has been breached?
How can a company get out of such a partnership and not fall apart?
Are there laws against such agreements?

 

[dmcowen674]

"Are there laws against such agreements?"

All Your Base Belong To Us

 

[sandorski]

I think you are making a mountain out of a molehill. The advantage to having such an agreement is that IBM(in this case) would put together a system that's gauranteed to function properly. It isn't necessary to get such a system, but for someone starting out who doesn't have the knowledge to choose a compatible system or doesn't have the time to troubleshoot glitches, this type of arrangement can be very beneficial.

As for their other services, they also could be very beneficial for someone starting out, but they are not mandatory.

 

[ReiAyanami]

as long as its not McDonald's giving her the loan, infrastructure, fry instruction manual...

franchises are overrated.
but you can trust Big Blue. they have a computer that can defeat humans...

 

[Dari]

Originally posted by: sandorski
I think you are making a mountain out of a molehill. The advantage to having such an agreement is that IBM(in this case) would put together a system that's gauranteed to function properly. It isn't necessary to get such a system, but for someone starting out who doesn't have the knowledge to choose a compatible system or doesn't have the time to troubleshoot glitches, this type of arrangement can be very beneficial.

As for their other services, they also could be very beneficial for someone starting out, but they are not mandatory.

My friend was just a "lock-in while they're young" example. There are many corporations that are being pressed by IBM. My concern is that this could do more harm than good in the long run.