This image was lost some time after publication.

Why is the New York Times tripping over itself to laud IBM for its "nimbleness"? Clearly visible in the accompanying chart but not mentioned in the article, IBM's total revenue and service-sector growth have been stagnant over the same period. Moreover, the transition to services has been underway for a decade, if not longer. Surely IBM's still-substantial print advertising budget and propensity for taking out full-page newspaper ads has nothing to do with the article's velvet-glove treatment of Big Blue. But how else to explain the article's un-Timesian enthusiasm over such modest change?

The article suggests growth in IBM's software business will boost services deals, but then states: "the unanswered question about I.B.M. is, Can the new, higher-margin business grow fast enough to offset the maturing of its traditional services business and rising competition from the Indian outsourcers?" The article does little to answer that question while still proclaiming IBM "has made impressive progress." Even CEO Sam Palmisano is less bullish on IBM's prospects than the Times: He merely says that "there's still a lot to be done." (Chart by NYT)