From what I see of the MS and Birmingham quotes in this article, it looks like Microsoft did indeed offer incentives. It gets plausible deniability because it did not offer them directly to Birmingham as a means of inducing the city to upgrade to XP. The key phrase that makes this likely is "There is a common buying framework."
In other words, while MS may not have made a deal directly with Birmingham, that common buying framework gives Microsoft the ability to offer incentives that Birmingham can use without such incentives being tied directly to the Birmingham migration process as a cause.
The sketchy form of the McGrath quote and the avoidant nature of the Evans quote combine to convince me this must be the case -- that Birmingham did indeed choose Windows because of incentives, but that Microsoft offered them in a manner that provides plausible deniability so they can claim it's all based on the merits of Windows alone.
Discussion on:
View:
Show:
they'll make an arse of it whatever they use.
The salaries they pay in local government I'm surprised when they manage to get "Hello World" implemented.
To be brutally honest the level of skill, I've perceived in there, they probably are better off with windows, after all it is the I don't want to think about it OS.
The salaries they pay in local government I'm surprised when they manage to get "Hello World" implemented.
To be brutally honest the level of skill, I've perceived in there, they probably are better off with windows, after all it is the I don't want to think about it OS.
You only have to look at the projects they've took on.
My favourite was the DHSS swipe card. 4 billion pounds and they linked up 300 post offices, badly.
Then you read up about the complete arse they are making of the new NHS thing.
To be fair they probably can program hello world, a lot of their problems seem to be infra-structure related. You hear things like systems can't talk to each other or can't even connect to each other.
Seems to be generally and overall lack of plan in terms of the architecture they must have in order for the system to work.
Big systems particularly when nodes are managed, separately bring in a whole new class of problems in terms of project management and system architecture. The mistakes they are making from the outside, seem to be very basic.
My favourite was the DHSS swipe card. 4 billion pounds and they linked up 300 post offices, badly.
Then you read up about the complete arse they are making of the new NHS thing.
To be fair they probably can program hello world, a lot of their problems seem to be infra-structure related. You hear things like systems can't talk to each other or can't even connect to each other.
Seems to be generally and overall lack of plan in terms of the architecture they must have in order for the system to work.
Big systems particularly when nodes are managed, separately bring in a whole new class of problems in terms of project management and system architecture. The mistakes they are making from the outside, seem to be very basic.
they keep failing on scaling.
You get the impression they are building pilots that will never scale up, spending millions on kit to run it, then finding out their plan is for sh*t.
CSA, new computer system, doesn't work second computer system, doesn't talk to the first one.
OOPS ????
You get the impression they are building pilots that will never scale up, spending millions on kit to run it, then finding out their plan is for sh*t.
CSA, new computer system, doesn't work second computer system, doesn't talk to the first one.
OOPS ????
Here, we just completely failed to deploy wireless on one of the college campuses. I think a "study" was done on the order of $1 million and worse yet, it proved nothing.
I think it's just he way gov't operates. You can't get fired, so you just have the incompetents stay for the piss poor salary...
I think it's just he way gov't operates. You can't get fired, so you just have the incompetents stay for the piss poor salary...
driving the economy though 
When they publish those statistics on why large percentages of IT projects over run, under perform or just flat out fail, I wonder how many are government run.
Definition of an elephant, a government specified mouse.
RAH
When they publish those statistics on why large percentages of IT projects over run, under perform or just flat out fail, I wonder how many are government run.
Definition of an elephant, a government specified mouse.
RAH
Working in UK Govt before wasn't bad, I was involved on the scientific/develepoment side.
However the "Official Secrets Act" (especially Section 2) forbid me saying much.
But my bosses boss (called in the Civil Service, my 2nd reporting officer) used to come back very late from lunch when either/both of the two main contenders for Europes largest supercomputer centers competed. (after the fact, it did become the biggest computer center in Europe)
In those days, back in 70's
The two contenders were Kray and CDC, and both fought hotly to get this "foothold" contract into Europe.
So my boss very much enjoyed all these "hospit(hic)ality" lunches from them. Often he would disappear for the rest of the day.
There were MANY free lunches before any decisions were made.
In the end, the CDC Cyber 205 won (guess they bought more beer?)
....and the Dept I worked for became the most powerful computer complex in Eurape.
....so started a new phase in my life, of parallel programming and especially the development of the art of graphics mapping, creating a revolutionary way of using computer graphics to map things that didn't need spline fitting to curves.
(this was in the days before Windows,
now this technique is commonplace, but then it was new, groundbreaking stuff: more about that in another post, sometime)
(already, I can hear the Secret Police of OFSA (S2) knocking at my door)
My point?
There are may ways of easing the entry, use lots of lubricant helps.
so to speak 
However the "Official Secrets Act" (especially Section 2) forbid me saying much.
But my bosses boss (called in the Civil Service, my 2nd reporting officer) used to come back very late from lunch when either/both of the two main contenders for Europes largest supercomputer centers competed. (after the fact, it did become the biggest computer center in Europe)
In those days, back in 70's
The two contenders were Kray and CDC, and both fought hotly to get this "foothold" contract into Europe.
So my boss very much enjoyed all these "hospit(hic)ality" lunches from them. Often he would disappear for the rest of the day.
There were MANY free lunches before any decisions were made.
In the end, the CDC Cyber 205 won (guess they bought more beer?)
....and the Dept I worked for became the most powerful computer complex in Eurape.
....so started a new phase in my life, of parallel programming and especially the development of the art of graphics mapping, creating a revolutionary way of using computer graphics to map things that didn't need spline fitting to curves.
(this was in the days before Windows,
now this technique is commonplace, but then it was new, groundbreaking stuff: more about that in another post, sometime)
(already, I can hear the Secret Police of OFSA (S2) knocking at my door)
My point?
There are may ways of easing the entry, use lots of lubricant helps.
so to speak
If Micorsoft is indeed offering uncommercial discounts, there will come a point where the whole market becomes uneconomic for them. And local government officials are ofetn quite open with other local government officials, so the prices paid are likely to become common knowledge quite quickly.
My guess is that the prices given to Birmingham were profitable, but cut to the bone: development costs can be ignored, they've been recovered from other markets, so the issue is whether MS make a profit after distribution and support costs. Fair enough, Linux will have to learn to compete with that!
Of course, the real issue should be a political one: does the EU want to be in thrall to an American Software Company, just to save a bit of cash in the short term ...
My guess is that the prices given to Birmingham were profitable, but cut to the bone: development costs can be ignored, they've been recovered from other markets, so the issue is whether MS make a profit after distribution and support costs. Fair enough, Linux will have to learn to compete with that!
Of course, the real issue should be a political one: does the EU want to be in thrall to an American Software Company, just to save a bit of cash in the short term ...
Buying M$ when the price drops is self defeating. Like buying at WalMart and killing your community's job-base.
Mere use of OpenSource as netgotiating OPTION is like Jonathan Swift saying feeding your Irish children is too expensive. So EAT THEM!
Mere use of OpenSource as netgotiating OPTION is like Jonathan Swift saying feeding your Irish children is too expensive. So EAT THEM!
- Keyboard Shortcuts:
- Prev
- Next
- Toggle
