Feeds

Reg man crunches IBM's storage hardware revenues

A tale of two charts

Top 5 reasons to deploy VMware with Tegile

Analysis IBM's under-performing storage hardware business can be understood better if we look at the quarterly revenue numbers.

For that to be made possible someone has to dive into IBM's results over the past few quarters and work out the storage hardware revenue numbers, seeing as IBM doesn't present them on a plate. That's what El Reg storage desk has done. For the past 12 quarters, we have compiled likely revenues, having worked them out on the basis of a storage segment percentage of an overall Systems and Technology group revenue number, entered these computed numbers into a spreadsheet, and generated two charts to present them.

IBM Storage Q1 2013

IBM Q1 2013 results slide showing storage segment percentage.

Here is the first chart and it shows IBM's quarterly storage hardware revenues since the second quarter of 2010:

IBM Quarterly Storage HW Revenues

We can see a steady seasonal pattern, with, for example, bumper fourth quarters as IBM sales management drives the reps hard at the end of the year. But we can also detect a falling off of storage revenues if we compare the same quarters in 2011 and 2012. If we annualise the chart then the decline in storage revenues from 2011 to 2012 becomes clearer:

IBM annual storage HW revenues

Our computed numbers behind this chart are:

  • 2010 - $3.633bn
  • 2011 - $3.668bn
  • 2012 - $3.406bn

The fall in storage HW revenues from 2011 to 2012 is probably not acceptable to the IBM number-crunchers, and may well have prompted the appointment of Ambuj Goyal as IBM's new storage biz boss in January.

IBM Storage Q12 2012

IBM Storage segment percentage Q1 2012

Now, three months into Goyal's stewardship, the first 2013 quarter's storage hardware business is 11 per cent down on the year-ago quarter according to IBM's release, which confirms the rot is continuing. With all this clear, it's easy to see why IBM CFO Mark Loughridge said that "substantial actions" were going to be taken in the storage area, and in the under-performing server area too.

We don't know what the profit and loss numbers are for the storage hardware business and are not likely to find them out.

It would be fascinating to see the overall storage hardware revenue numbers broken down further, by IBM storage product lines, but those numbers are not being made public. All we can deduce is that, if Storwize and XIV revenues grew strongly, the under-performing products must have performed quite badly. ®

Beginner's guide to SSL certificates

More from The Register

next story
Ellison: Sparc M7 is Oracle's most important silicon EVER
'Acceleration engines' key to performance, security, Larry says
Oracle SHELLSHOCKER - data titan lists unpatchables
Database kingpin lists 32 products that can't be patched (yet) as GNU fixes second vuln
Lenovo to finish $2.1bn IBM x86 server gobble in October
A lighter snack than expected – but what's a few $100m between friends, eh?
Ello? ello? ello?: Facebook challenger in DDoS KNOCKOUT
Gets back up again after half an hour though
Hey, what's a STORAGE company doing working on Internet-of-Cars?
Boo - it's not a terabyte car, it's just predictive maintenance and that
prev story

Whitepapers

Forging a new future with identity relationship management
Learn about ForgeRock's next generation IRM platform and how it is designed to empower CEOS's and enterprises to engage with consumers.
Storage capacity and performance optimization at Mizuno USA
Mizuno USA turn to Tegile storage technology to solve both their SAN and backup issues.
The next step in data security
With recent increased privacy concerns and computers becoming more powerful, the chance of hackers being able to crack smaller-sized RSA keys increases.
Security for virtualized datacentres
Legacy security solutions are inefficient due to the architectural differences between physical and virtual environments.
A strategic approach to identity relationship management
ForgeRock commissioned Forrester to evaluate companies’ IAM practices and requirements when it comes to customer-facing scenarios versus employee-facing ones.