The Great GenAI Race
How Marketing Will Shape Technology’s Next Grand Architecture
A new global war is unfolding, one that will impact us all: the marketing battle to determine enterprise GenAI dominance. Just as the competition over collaboration tools in the early 2000s shaped the future leaders of cloud computing, today's race for AI supremacy will decide the dominant players and define the technology landscape of the 21st century. In this great AI race, the stakes are higher than ever: greater than they were for cloud computing, greater than for collaboration.
The strategic marketing choices made today will influence more than quarterly sales and market share; they will shape the very infrastructure and architecture that powers the workflows of the future. History tells us that it is not just great technology, but great marketing, that ultimately decides the future.
The technology industry has always been as much about marketing as it has been about innovation. From the early days of personal computing to the rise of the internet, and now the AI revolution, strategic marketing has consistently played a pivotal role in determining which technologies thrive and which fade into obscurity. This history offers a rich tapestry of examples where marketing decisions have had a lasting impact on the industry, shaping not only which companies lead, but also how the underlying technology architecture evolves.
As we enter a new era defined by AI, this relationship between marketing and technological dominance is more relevant than ever. By reviewing IBM's marketing approach over the past three decades—essentially the span of my career as an analyst—we can reflect on where this strategy may be leading and how a vendor’s marketing decisions around AI Agents well might reshape future technology dominance for the next few decades.
Quiet Confidence or Missed Opportunity?
Despite IBM’s significant influence in the enterprise world, its marketing has always appeared notably subdued, especially when compared to tech giants like Microsoft, Salesforce, and Oracle. IBM has consistently favoured a steady, understated approach, avoiding the flashy, disruptive, and bold messaging that often defines its competitors. At times, this approach has seemed out of sync with market trends—either a decade ahead of its time or trailing a beat behind market pulse.
It has long been unclear to me whether this strategy reflects an unshakable confidence, in line with the belief IBM are, technologically, the "smartest in the room," or whether scientific and market innovation are confined to the lab. Their marketing approach has consistently prioritised building long-term relationships with large, institutional, and multi-generational organisations, often allowing other companies to shape the future of technology—even when IBM was the one to pioneer it.
While decisions such as ceding dominance or not aggressively pursuing emerging opportunities may seem inconsequential at the time, their long-term impact can be profound, shaping the technological landscape over decades. These choices become pivotal forces that influence the architectural models and technological frameworks that endure for generations. This illustrates a kind of "butterfly effect" in marketing—where actions made in the moment ripple across time, leaving a lasting mark on the global technology landscape.
For large, complex organisations with extensive systems and long-term contracts, simplicity and consistency in messaging can be valuable assets. However, in today’s landscape, disruption is equally valued—even by industries that have traditionally prioritised stability and long-term relationships.
While IBM’s reserved approach may still resonate with these customers, the question remains: for how long? For example, whether exploring AI agents or zSeries mainframes on IBM’s website, the layout, language, and user journey remain consistently structured and uniform.
But does this approach continue to meet the evolving expectations of modern customers?
Is that enough in an era where agility and visibility are so critical?
Or does this steady, understated approach limit IBM's ability to capture new markets or appeal to a younger, more dynamic audience?
Could IBM’s reluctance to embrace more competitive, high-visibility marketing now be stifling its potential to expand beyond its well-established enterprise base?
The Cost of Minimalism: Lessons from the Collaboration Wars
The drawbacks of IBM’s minimalist marketing approach became evident during the "collaboration wars" of the early 2000s, a defining moment that set the stage for today’s cloud and enterprise ecosystems. During this period, IBM’s Lotus Notes-Domino platform went head-to-head with Microsoft’s Exchange-Outlook suite in the battle for dominance in enterprise communication and collaboration tools.
Lotus Notes was more than just an email system. It was a full-fledged development platform that allowed businesses to build custom applications, manage unstructured data, and integrate these capabilities with core business functions. Its robust Domino server infrastructure was built for flexibility, which made it popular among businesses with complex, unique needs.
Microsoft, on the other hand, took a different approach. Their Exchange-Outlook combination, tightly integrated with SQL Server, offered not only email and calendaring but a more seamless integration of structured data across enterprise applications. Microsoft aggressively marketed Exchange-Outlook as the future of business productivity, promoting it as a simpler, more unified solution for organisations looking to improve efficiency and collaboration. Their campaigns were everywhere: on buses, online, on billboards, in magazines, on television, and digital media.
The differences in marketing approach couldn’t have been starker. While IBM focused on promoting its robust product, emphasising flexibility and technical capabilities, Microsoft blanketed the market with messaging that appealed to enterprises, prosumers, and consumers alike. Microsoft’s aggressive marketing strategy pushed its platform to the forefront of both business and personal productivity tools, from the bedroom to the boardroom, creating a sense of inevitability about its dominance.
The consequences of IBM’s understated marketing became clear over time. As businesses moved toward mobility, messaging, and integrated intranet solutions, Microsoft’s approach allowed them to lock in significant market share. IBM’s Lotus Notes, despite its technical strengths, began to feel increasingly out of place in a market that was rapidly evolving.
Even as Microsoft stumbled with certain products like early SharePoint, their cohesive ecosystem and aggressive marketing strategy allowed them to stay ahead. By the time IBM finally discontinued Lotus Notes as a product in 2018, the collaboration wars had long been won by Microsoft.
More importantly, the loss wasn’t just about email systems—it extended to the underlying server infrastructure that supported these systems. Microsoft had secured control over key enterprise environments, with Exchange and SQL Server forming the backbone of many organisations’ emerging contemporary IT stacks. This dominance paved the way for Microsoft’s brand transition into cloud computing, using the trust and infrastructure they had built over the years to offer a more integrated public cloud experience.
Microsoft’s success in public cloud is inextricably linked to their victory in the collaboration wars. By dominating collaboration tools, they secured a foothold in the underlying server infrastructure—Windows Server and SQL Server—that would become essential in the cloud era. This gave Microsoft a head start when cloud computing began to take off, as they already had deep integration into the enterprise environments that would be transitioning to the cloud.
IBM, on the other hand, found itself on the back foot. The loss of market share in collaboration tools also meant hits to the server infrastructure that powered these systems. Without this foothold, they were at a clear disadvantage as cloud computing gained momentum.
Thanks to hybrid cloud architectures and RedHat, IBM remains highly relevant today but their early missteps limited their control over enterprise ecosystems and ultimately made it harder to compete with the likes of Microsoft and Amazon in the public cloud arena.
This ripple effect underscores the long-term consequences of early victories and losses in key technological battles. Microsoft’s aggressive marketing and ecosystem approach paid off in spades when the cloud era began while IBM’s quiet, steady approach, which may have worked for maintaining deep relationships with established enterprise clients, wasn’t enough to seize the momentum needed to dominate the emerging cloud market.
Beyond Collaboration: Business Intelligence and Analytics
There are more examples. The story of IBM’s marketing approach in the collaboration wars mirrors their challenges in other key areas of technology. Take, for instance, the business intelligence (BI) and analytics space, where IBM had two strong products: Cognos (IBM Cognos Analytics) and SPSS (IBM SPSS Statistics). These platforms have long been and continue to be highly regarded for their advanced analytics capabilities. They are widely used by large enterprises for comprehensive reporting and in-depth data analysis.
Once again, IBM’s minimalist marketing struggled to capture a broader market share. Competitors like Microsoft and Tableau entered the business intelligence space with products that were not only powerful but also more accessible and user-friendly. These platforms quickly gained traction, largely due to their ease of adoption by non-technical users and strong, aggressive marketing campaigns. At an analyst event in Las Vegas in the mid-2000s, a question raised about the rise of Power BI but was dismissed out of hand.
Despite the technical strengths of Cognos and SPSS, IBM struggled to compete with the ease of use and visibility of these newer platforms. Microsoft, with Power BI, followed the same playbook it had used in the collaboration wars: build a cohesive ecosystem, market aggressively, and make the product accessible to a broad audience. Once again, did IBM, despite having technically superior products, find itself losing out on mass adoption—simply overshadowed by competitors that were more visible and disruptive?
The Disconnect: Lavish Events vs. Minimalist Marketing
Curiously, IBM’s comparatively low-key public marketing approach contrasts sharply with the grandeur of their events. Having attended many large-scale events over many years in cities like Las Vegas, New York, Orlando, and Fort Lauderdale, it’s clear that these events present a very different IBM—one that understands the power of spectacle, complete with headline acts, high-profile speakers, and an atmosphere brimming with innovation and ambition.
The disconnect is striking. IBM’s digital marketing is so understated compared to the dynamic, emotive experiences at these events. I’ve often found that after attending, the IBM I tried to describe to others—one that felt visionary and bold—didn’t align with their perceptions, perhaps because their understanding of IBM came from its quieter, more reserved public marketing.
The answer likely lies in audience segmentation. IBM’s large-scale events are designed for enterprise clients and key decision-makers, many of whom are already on board with IBM’s solutions or deep in the sales cycle. These events are less about marketing and more about reinforcing relationships, demonstrating IBM’s expertise, and showcasing their commitment to long-term, enterprise-level solutions.
In contrast, IBM's digital and public-facing marketing remains minimalist. While this dual strategy has its merits, it also places significant pressure on the company’s pre-sales teams to bridge the gap between the understated public presence and the technical expertise required to secure new business. Without the aggressive, awareness-building marketing that competitors rely on, IBM must depend heavily on pre-sales efforts to convert potential customers.
The Relevance of Minimalism in Modern Technology Marketing
As a technology analyst, I’ve always approached aggressive digital marketing with caution. My first CEO, who remains an active SVP Emeritus today, instilled in us a sense of scepticism toward it. Personally, I’ve preferred thoughtful, deliberate communication over flashy, attention-grabbing tactics. However, it's impossible to overlook the crucial role marketing plays in shaping the future of technology.
IBM's marketing choices over the past three decades seem, to me at least, to reflect a calculated strategy of minimalism and quiet confidence. This approach has worked in maintaining deep, trusting relationships with large enterprises that value stability, long-term partnerships, and reliability over hype. Yet, these same choices raise questions about whether IBM's strategy will keep pace with shifting market dynamics.
The “collaboration wars” of the early 2000s is a prime example. IBM’s failure to capture significant market share in collaboration tools didn’t just cost them visibility in that sector; it had a ripple effect on the company’s ability to compete in related fields, including server infrastructure and, ultimately, cloud computing. By comparison, Microsoft, with its aggressive marketing and ecosystem approach, was able to capitalise on its early gains in collaboration and dominate cloud computing—a space where IBM was initially well-positioned but struggled to keep pace.
Similarly, in the business intelligence (BI) and analytics space, IBM's products like Cognos and SPSS were technically superior, but they were outperformed by more user-friendly, aggressively marketed alternatives such as Microsoft Power BI and Tableau. This further demonstrated that while IBM’s minimalist marketing reinforced trust among existing clients, it limited their reach into newer, rapidly evolving markets.
Importantly, this approach may limit their future success particularly in a modern world where visibility, agility, and disruption increasingly define success. This tension—between quiet confidence and the need for disruption—may also explain why IBM sometimes feels out of step with the most cutting-edge market trends.
The AI Agent Race: Defining the Blueprint for Tomorrow’s Technology Architecture
Now, as the next technological frontier—Generative AI assistants—emerges, the stakes extend far beyond the current battle for enterprise dominance.
The AI agent market holds the potential to not only reshape enterprise technology but also redefine the very infrastructure on which future technologies will be built.
For example, global uptake of AI Agents will be a stepping stone toward a deeper restructuring of the entire digital and technological ecosystem starting with a restructuring of data centre infrastructure. This demand for massive computational power, and as it evolves, will eventually see the rise of quantum computing to handle complex AI models and data sets.
Much like the collaboration wars shaped today’s cloud computing landscape, AI agents are poised to transform decision-making, automation, and enterprise operations, laying the foundation for the next generation of data centers, workflows, and technology ecosystems.
So what’s truly at stake is the future architecture of technology itself. The companies that gain early trust and integrate their AI agents into enterprise systems will likely dominate the next era of infrastructure, controlling the flow of data, the structure of innovation, and even the future of automation.
History tells us that that strategic marketing decisions made today will determine who takes the lead, just as Microsoft’s early success with collaboration tools gave them a foothold in cloud computing. The leaders of the AI agent market won’t just be shaping software—they’ll be shaping the underlying infrastructure that powers the digital economy. Those who own the AI workflows could very well own the market, and with it, the future of enterprise technology.
In this fast-changing landscape, marketing is not just about visibility—it's a decisive factor in determining market dominance. Companies like Microsoft, ServiceNow, and Salesforce, which have already embedded AI deeply into their ecosystems, are well-positioned to lead. IBM, with its strong foothold in enterprise solutions, hybrid cloud, and advancements in Watson AI, has a solid opportunity to compete. However, it must navigate a critical juncture to secure its place in the Generative AI market and successfully challenge more disruptive competitors.