On Tue Jun 12 8:09 , Greg Twyford <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> sent:
>How would such a company capture these players, when it's actions are >against their interests? Being captured by a messaging vendor is already >seen as bad news by these providers. Providers want business partners >that can use them easily, as a competitive edge. Losing parity would be >a bad idea. It doesn't capture them, it doesn't have to: it offers a service at a lower price because it does not need to provide free support to receivers. This is why senders hate 'capture' in the first place: it's the way they are obliged to pay for support to recievers. >The investigations providers have paid for the installs at GP premises, >but this is becoming much less universal. I've done installs of both >Healthlink and Promedicus, because all the GP got was disk or an E-mail >attachment with some instructions. Getting a disk and instructions is how most software is recieved. It's only in medicine that you expect someone else to come along and install it for you, for free. >It won't happen without agreement [the business model] and standards >[the technology]. Certainly the standard is also required. However the commerical agreement could get very complex. Could be be like the private insurance industry, where vendors publish there ratio of senders and recivers and pay each other subsidies to compensate (as PHIs compensate each other for taking older patients) The PHI agreements only exist because of complex and heavy government involvement, it's hard to see how a voluntary agreement could sustain the same thing. Ian Haywood _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
