In the UK right now, there's a big fuss going on about a deal struck between the National Health Service (the UK equivalent to Medicaid) and Microsoft. The UK government's purchasing department believes Microsoft are charging too much with their new licence agreements. Bill Gates has agreed to meet personally with the NHS top brass to close the deal!
The problem is that the NHS has no viable alternative to Windows and Office. Linux is pretty unfriendly as a desktop operating system and the support costs would be much, much higher.
Migrating to Mac is not an option for the NHS for two reasons:
1. they would have to write off their investment in PC hardware
2. they would be locked into Apple hardware - an even more costly monopoly than Microsoft, where Apple proudly boast about their 30% margins - not the kind of thing the NHS's procurement department likes to hear.
Well this situation gets me thinking about OS X on Intel again. The reason Apple won't do this is because it will cannibalize their profitable hardware sales. Contracts like the NHS could be very lucrative for Apple, and it is possible for them to port OS X to Intel (they've probably already done so at Cupertino for kicks). Of course they can't offer OS X on Intel to everyone (their hardware sales would suffer), but why not develop it under a different brand like "OS X Enterprise Edition" bundle it with Apple Works and a few other bits and market it as a cost effective alternative to Windows for large corporate accounts. It protects your hardware investment, there are lower support costs than Linux, and there's plenty of software available. I wonder if Microsoft could be persuaded to compile Office v.X for Mac to Intel? Probably not I guess, but image how cool that would be.
The problem is that the NHS has no viable alternative to Windows and Office. Linux is pretty unfriendly as a desktop operating system and the support costs would be much, much higher.
Migrating to Mac is not an option for the NHS for two reasons:
1. they would have to write off their investment in PC hardware
2. they would be locked into Apple hardware - an even more costly monopoly than Microsoft, where Apple proudly boast about their 30% margins - not the kind of thing the NHS's procurement department likes to hear.
Well this situation gets me thinking about OS X on Intel again. The reason Apple won't do this is because it will cannibalize their profitable hardware sales. Contracts like the NHS could be very lucrative for Apple, and it is possible for them to port OS X to Intel (they've probably already done so at Cupertino for kicks). Of course they can't offer OS X on Intel to everyone (their hardware sales would suffer), but why not develop it under a different brand like "OS X Enterprise Edition" bundle it with Apple Works and a few other bits and market it as a cost effective alternative to Windows for large corporate accounts. It protects your hardware investment, there are lower support costs than Linux, and there's plenty of software available. I wonder if Microsoft could be persuaded to compile Office v.X for Mac to Intel? Probably not I guess, but image how cool that would be.
