Ewan, the bottom deserves your attention

GP systems suppliers make the majority of their money from selling
support.
						Yes  [  ]	No [ ]

In order to sell support, they must have users of their product.

Or have everyone using a product (eg MS Office integrations) which can
be maintained by several suppliers, or have a common format medical
record which can be read and written to by several programs, each
supported by a supplier and interchangeable with those of another
supplier with trifling* inconvenience.  XML and simpler open standards
offer this in due course.

						Yes  [ X]	

Therefore it makes sense for the suppliers to offer incentives, and
make it easy for users to migrate to them, since this will generate an
income stream which might go on for years.
						Yes  [  ]	No [ ]

The on cost of another copy of an executable is trivial.
						Yes  [  ]	No [ ]

Therefore the offer by Reuters to users of SM, and GP+, of:-
	free Vision
	free conversion of data
	same subscription for licences and support (£288/user/year) for 5
years**

would have been a sensible offer to make at any time
						Yes  [  ]	No [ ]

without buying the company - MicroSolutions
						Yes  [  ]	No [ ]

For a lot of money...

    _IF_

Users of SM or GP+ wanted to use Vision but were put off by the cost or
the continuing expense of the upgrade.

So:-
Other suppliers could have as good a chance of acquiring revenue as
Reuters, by making the same offer...
						Yes  [  ]	No [ ]

And a better chance if their software is better
						Yes  [  ]	
Or prettier

And an even better chance if the effect of buying MicroSolutions was to
irritate and disturb many of the users....
which it was
						Yes  [  ]	No [ ]

and in any case, not having bought the company, the large (presumably
and maybe even _very_ large) expense of that does not need to be
allowed for in the revenue stream from the converted users

And the attitude of the NHS will be that this is a move which does not
involve the expenditure of so large an amount to be recouped from GP IT
funds and the expense element and therefore from the NHS, and that
therefore the company involved is populated by Good Folk
						Yes  [  ]	No [ ]
well, insofar as the NHS is capable of displaying gratitude anyway
						Yes  [  ]	No [ ]
The Point
-----------
So, what deals will other companies offer to users and recent ex-users
of Surgery Manager or GP+ software, will they match the RHI offer, and
why not extend a general free conversion and executables policy to all
users of all systems on the basis that this is the most obvious
commitment that companies could make toward easy transportability of
data and interoperability (since each step toward it would reduce the
costs of the company making it by a commensurate amount.

Hardware of course is another matter, it actually needs to be bought.

Midgley
Ex-Chairman SMUG+

-----------------
FootNotes
-----------------
* trifling inconvenience means that the programs must be capable of
operating simultaneously, eg Dr Smith using MedWord and Dr Jones using
MedAmi on the same patients' records in the same practice on the same
day, and if they want to swap just slotting the CDs.
Not, for instance, a process involving 20 days work and 2 days down
time.

** £288 for the first 8 users, a reduction for larger numbers.


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%