NHS signs £500m contract with Microsoft

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by munkle, Nov 3, 2004.

  1. munkle macrumors 68030

    munkle

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2004
    Location:
    On a jet plane
    #1
    link, link, link.

    Looks like the old adage, 'nobody has ever been fired for choosing Microsoft' proves true again.

    Although I do think that the NHS has struck a deal on their terms rather than Microsoft's, and interestingly are not barred from evaluating open source options in the future. And I am hugely surprised that the much underfunded NHS allocates $100 billion a year into IT :eek: This deal is an important feather in the cap of Microsoft.

    Oh and for you non-Brits out there, the NHS is the National Health Service, a publicly funded health care service whose philosophy revolves around the concept that healthcare should be free, available to all and funded by taxes (note not National Insurance!). A little tid bit for you all, the NHS is the third largest employer in the world after the Chinese Army and Indian Raliways.
     
  2. Counterfit macrumors G3

    Counterfit

    Joined:
    Aug 20, 2003
    Location:
    sitting on your shoulder
    #2
    When I first read the title of the thread, I thought "500 meter contract? WTF? :confused:"






    Yeah, it's time for bed. :rolleyes:
     
  3. AmigoMac macrumors 68020

    AmigoMac

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2003
    Location:
    l'Allemagne
    #3
    Then, they should go opensource, hopefully they won't get any virus... :rolleyes: , if you want to get burned, play with fire... easy !
     
  4. munkle thread starter macrumors 68030

    munkle

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2004
    Location:
    On a jet plane
    #4
    As Ballmer said recently, Microsoft has the upper hand in the open source fight because of the huge initial cost of switching (primarily training costs/downtime) and the heavy investments many firms have already placed in Microsoft, better the devil you know. Running costs might be cheaper but its the initial cost, plus added effort is acting as a big deterrent. Not to mention that Microsoft is able to partner with firms and is a 'visible' corporation.
     
  5. edesignuk Moderator emeritus

    edesignuk

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2002
    Location:
    London, England
    #5
    Do you mean million?
    WOW! I didn't know that, that's pretty amazing.
     
  6. munkle thread starter macrumors 68030

    munkle

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2004
    Location:
    On a jet plane
    #6
    No it really is billion :eek: ! From the article:

    Just hope the nurses don't find out...
     
  7. munkle thread starter macrumors 68030

    munkle

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2004
    Location:
    On a jet plane
    #7
    Just realised the £ sign isn't showing up on the front page, have no idea why...
     
  8. edesignuk Moderator emeritus

    edesignuk

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2002
    Location:
    London, England
    #8
    Bloody hell :eek: One of my parents friends is pretty senior in the NHS, and she says her IT dept are useless, as are the systems. WTF do they do with £100bn :confused:

    edit: hold on, that's $, so that's ~£54bn.
     
  9. AmigoMac macrumors 68020

    AmigoMac

    Joined:
    Aug 5, 2003
    Location:
    l'Allemagne
    #9
    Even a single bn isn't a reason to: Hold on ;). Sad if they forget the Xserves...
     
  10. Gaz macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2002
    Location:
    London, UK
    #10
    Well firstly you hire a bunch of different consultants in and let them design and build the systems for you... so happens that most of the partners have strong ties with Microsoft so it's not that surprising really. There's way more money invested in to this than just given to Microsoft...
     
  11. cubist macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2002
    Location:
    Muncie, Indiana
    #11
    Well, if it costs that much and takes that many people just for a little country like Britain, then that's obviously an idea that won't work for the rest of the world. How can the UK afford it? It must be taking like 75% of your GDP to pay for it.
     
  12. munkle thread starter macrumors 68030

    munkle

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2004
    Location:
    On a jet plane
    #12
    Theoretically it's meant to be self funding via taxes, therefore more people=more taxes=more funding=more people being covered.

    And think of how many people are involved in health care in any country, including the non-medical staff, it just happens to be under one very big banner in the UK.
     
  13. Blue Velvet Moderator emeritus

    Joined:
    Jul 4, 2004
    #13
    Isn't a 'British' billion different to the 'US' one?

    1,000,000,000 (thousand million as opposed to a million millions)

    Still a lot of money, no matter which way you look at it.
     
  14. evoluzione macrumors 68010

    evoluzione

    Joined:
    Jul 19, 2002
    Location:
    down the road, that's where i'll always be
    #14

    not so sure about that, it depends on what the conversion is...don't forget, a US bilion is 100million (9 zeros), whereas a UK billion is a million million (12 zeros). unless that's no longer true and the UK is inline with the US on that now...

    then again, i could have been wrong my whole life....quite possible, anyone care to enlighten me????




    as for the article, wow. where the hell do they spend it??? it sure ain't on what it should be spent on that's for damn certain.
     
  15. takao macrumors 68040

    takao

    Joined:
    Dec 25, 2003
    Location:
    Dornbirn (Austria)
    #15
    at least it's here in switzerland,austria and germany this way

    1.000.000 = 1 Million
    1.000.000.000 = 1 Milliarde (in english: Billion)
    1.000.000.000.000 = 1 Billion (in english: Trillion)
    1.000.000.000.000.000 = 1 Billiarde (in english: quadrillion)
    1.000.000.000.000.000.000 = 1 Trillion (no idea)
    etc.

    the british use the same names like the americans as far as i know
    here we have the additional ones (i have no idea about the french..)
     
  16. munkle thread starter macrumors 68030

    munkle

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2004
    Location:
    On a jet plane
    #16
    So it's £540 million odd they're spending each year on IT - yup that's still a heck of a lot no matter which way you look at it!
     
  17. edesignuk Moderator emeritus

    edesignuk

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2002
    Location:
    London, England
    #17
    That sounds much more like it, £540m I can believe.
     
  18. emw macrumors G4

    emw

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2004
    #18
    We here in America like to refer to that as "a s**tload."
     
  19. edesignuk Moderator emeritus

    edesignuk

    Joined:
    Mar 25, 2002
    Location:
    London, England
    #19
    I'm still a bit confused BTW, so what we're saying is that when America says they have spent $1bn on something, what have they actually spent in £? :confused:
     
  20. emw macrumors G4

    emw

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2004
    #20
    It has to be more than that - I can't imagine supporting a national health care system on £540m. My company's budget for it is about £60m (roughly translated from $US), and we're only about a $10Billion in revenue corp.

    So I would tend to believe the $100 Billion, or £54 Billion number from the article. They just signed a with Microsoft for £500m, which would have accounted for over 90% of their budget.
     
  21. emw macrumors G4

    emw

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2004
    #21
    $1 Billion * exchange rate = .542801 = ~£543 million. But the article stated $100bn, which is £54bn.

    Edit: Of course, in America, when we say we spent $1bn, we're usually referring to budget, which we never hit, so likely we actually spent around $1.5bn. So "$1bn" = £814mn ;)
     
  22. munkle thread starter macrumors 68030

    munkle

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2004
    Location:
    On a jet plane
    #22
    You are right, $100bn = 54bn, which is what I thinking before but then I went cross eyed!

    And the figure is just for IT, not the overall health care system. That's why I was so shocked. I think Virginia could give the NHS a few pointers on how to build an IT system at the fraction of a cost! :rolleyes: ;)
     
  23. Ugg macrumors 68000

    Ugg

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2003
    Location:
    Penryn
    #23
    According to this site the UK spends $1675 per capita per year on health care whereas the US spends $4271 per capita. My guess is that government spending on health care is about equal. Of course in the UK everyone is covered unlike in the US.
     
  24. emw macrumors G4

    emw

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2004
    #24
    The funny thing is - the 2004 budget for Health and Human Services in the US is $508bn. Total. It doesn't break down the IT budget specifically, but that seems like a low number (not surprising, I guess) per capita compared to yours, since you have to figure IT can't be more that 10-15% of the total spend.
     
  25. emw macrumors G4

    emw

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2004
    #25
    Interesting. I guess that spending includes just what individuals/corporations pay, vs. government? According to the budget figures from the US, the government budgets about $1,720 per person (budget/population)
     

Share This Page