After shocking quarter, IBM insists that AI isn't killing the mainframe 72%

By Julie Bort56%

7/22/2026, 11:47:54 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 27 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice, Pessimism Bias, and Appeal to Authority, with Negativity Bias as the most egregious example at 18.3% saturation with 89 hits. Analysis detected 804 faulty-reasoning hits from 487 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 64.5% and a BS Rank of 72% (6,152 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 71.90% of the article peer group.

On Wednesday, IBM officially reported earnings and the news was as bad as everyone knew it would be. 
While the 115-year-old company still generates boatloads of cash  $17.2 billion in revenue, $9.9 billion in gross profit, nearly 58% margins, and $2.2 billion in net earnings for the quarter  its results fell well short of Wall Street’s expectations. 
It was such a bad miss that IBM CEO Arvind Krishna and the board took an unprecedented step of warning investors ahead of time that the earnings “was worse than our expectations,” offering everyone a sneak peek. 
He published a "letter to investors," last week sharing preliminary results. 
It warned of abysmal revenue in the company’s all-important "infrastructure" category and said that profit margins were also going to take a hit. 
The company’s stock instantly tanked 25%, it’s biggest single-day decline ever. 
Until then, the stock had performed well under Krishna’s six years of leadership, buoyed by the AI data center boom that had been lifting all boats. 
On Wednesday, IBM also lowered its full-year growth forecasts, meaning this horrible quarter would impact the rest of the year. 
The culprit? 
IBM’s cash-cow mainframe business was down 42%. 
That's a cascading problem, because as CFO Jim Kavanaugh explained on the quarterly call with investors, IBM earns $3 in software revenue for every $1 of mainframe hardware it sells. 
However, the CEO and CFO spent the call insisting that this was a temporary blip and all would be well soon. 
What happened, they said, was that "tens" of customers that were due to buy a new mainframe during the quarter opted not to do so. 
That may not sound like a lot of customers, but mainframes are systems that cost hundreds of thousands to millions of dollars, and with maintenance contracts and software, generate many millions more. 
The same AI boom that lifted IBM's boat also sank it. 
Instead of buying a new mainframe, these clients bought other hardware, Krishna explained. 
They were faced with astronomically high cost increases of 15% to 30% for data center gear and PCs. 
“When they were faced with that issue, then they decided to move budget to those areas where they were having that extreme price,” Krishna said. 
Enterprise hardware makers like Dell and HP have warned that rising costs on components like memory, caused by the AI build-out boom, have forced them to raise prices. 
Apple has said the same. 
But Krishna promised that those customers will still buy their new mainframes eventually  along with their new software contracts. 
In fact, he said some of them have already done so this quarter. 
"We see no evidence of clients moving off the mainframe," he said. 
We'll have to wait and see. 
But the tech industry has predicted the death of the mainframe for many decades now. 
Maybe even AI won't kill it. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 7.8%Julie Bort: 4.1%TechCrunch: 3.0%Confirmation Bias7.8%This article: 9.9%Julie Bort: 2.7%TechCrunch: 1.4%Anchoring Bias9.9%This article: 8.6%Julie Bort: 7.5%TechCrunch: 3.5%Availability Heuristic8.6%This article: 5.3%Julie Bort: 2.4%TechCrunch: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic5.3%This article: 3.1%Julie Bort: 1.2%TechCrunch: 0.6%Hindsight Bias3.1%This article: 2.5%Julie Bort: 3.9%TechCrunch: 2.5%Overconfidence Bias2.5%This article: 2.3%Julie Bort: 4.4%TechCrunch: 4.8%Framing Effect2.3%This article: 0.0%Julie Bort: 0.2%TechCrunch: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 3.1%Julie Bort: 1.2%TechCrunch: 0.6%Status Quo Bias3.1%This article: 3.1%Julie Bort: 0.1%TechCrunch: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect3.1%This article: 5.3%Julie Bort: 4.2%TechCrunch: 4.9%Optimism Bias5.3%This article: 12.9%Julie Bort: 1.0%TechCrunch: 1.3%Pessimism Bias12.9%This article: 18.3%Julie Bort: 5.4%TechCrunch: 5.0%Negativity Bias18.3%This article: 4.3%Julie Bort: 3.0%TechCrunch: 2.1%Self-Serving Bias4.3%This article: 0.0%Julie Bort: 0.9%TechCrunch: 0.5%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Julie Bort: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Julie Bort: 0.1%TechCrunch: 0.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Julie Bort: 0.4%TechCrunch: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 5.3%Julie Bort: 8.6%TechCrunch: 3.5%Halo Effect5.3%This article: 0.0%Julie Bort: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Julie Bort: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 2.3%Julie Bort: 4.1%TechCrunch: 2.3%Recency Bias2.3%This article: 0.0%Julie Bort: 0.3%TechCrunch: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Julie Bort: 0.1%TechCrunch: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Julie Bort: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.3%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Julie Bort: 0.3%TechCrunch: 0.6%Straw Man0.0%This article: 10.9%Julie Bort: 7.9%TechCrunch: 4.4%Appeal to Authority10.9%This article: 1.2%Julie Bort: 1.5%TechCrunch: 1.7%False Dilemma1.2%This article: 0.0%Julie Bort: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.7%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Julie Bort: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 9.2%Julie Bort: 6.9%TechCrunch: 6.0%Hasty Generalization9.2%This article: 0.0%Julie Bort: 0.4%TechCrunch: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Julie Bort: 3.8%TechCrunch: 1.1%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Julie Bort: 2.0%TechCrunch: 2.2%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 4.1%Julie Bort: 0.9%TechCrunch: 0.6%Begging the Question4.1%This article: 7.6%Julie Bort: 4.0%TechCrunch: 2.9%Post Hoc (False Cause)7.6%This article: 0.0%Julie Bort: 0.2%TechCrunch: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 2.5%Julie Bort: 0.8%TechCrunch: 0.5%Burden of Proof2.5%This article: 0.0%Julie Bort: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 6.6%Julie Bort: 0.7%TechCrunch: 0.3%Composition/Division6.6%This article: 0.0%Julie Bort: 3.6%TechCrunch: 2.4%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Julie Bort: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 5.1%Julie Bort: 3.4%TechCrunch: 2.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation)5.1%This article: 0.0%Julie Bort: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 1.2%Julie Bort: 0.3%TechCrunch: 0.2%Middle Ground1.2%This article: 0.0%Julie Bort: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Julie Bort: 0.1%TechCrunch: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Julie Bort: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 4.1%Julie Bort: 4.5%TechCrunch: 2.0%Unattributed Quote4.1%This article: 0.0%Julie Bort: 0.5%TechCrunch: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 16.2%Julie Bort: 7.3%TechCrunch: 4.6%Biased Writer Voice16.2%This article: 2.3%Julie Bort: 0.8%TechCrunch: 0.8%Indoctrination2.3%This article: 0.0%Julie Bort: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Julie Bort: 0.0%TechCrunch: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Julie Bort: 3.6%TechCrunch: 4.9%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

487 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers23%attributed speech374writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 41 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageJim Kavanaugh • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageKrishna • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageKrishna • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageKrishna • 20 words • 100.0% coverageKrishna • 13 words • 0.0% coverageKrishna • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Krishna

84%flagged-word coverage
83 attributed words73% of attributed speech97% writer coverage
0%12.5%25.0%Unattributed Quote+24.1 ptsWriter: 0.0%Krishna: 24.1%24.1%Biased Writer Voice-21.1 ptsWriter: 21.1%Krishna: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-2.9 ptsWriter: 2.9%Krishna: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.