Re: Sorry, but...
Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2012 14:42:14 -0800 (PST)
Message-ID: <efd13bba-45c3-4ca9-9ba3-595c56f48dd1_at_f33g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>
On Jan 6, 5:37 am, Eric <e..._at_deptj.eu> wrote:
> Essentially, Cerner is a provider of db services. They provide software
> for the Health Care industry, and I wouldn't be at all suprised if they
> had that number of hosted customers (though other options are available
> and some of the databases will be test databases for individual
> customers). Think of each of those databases as a complete hospital
> including all patient records, both administrative and clinical.
Yes, I understood perfectly what they do and why they "need" so many databases, although I tend to agree with Mladen that it would not be needed if indeed they are a service provider and they looked after efficiencies through consolidation.
> But you are right that 9.5 million is not really very significant. I am
> inclined to think that the savings are on other admin and monitoring
> products rather than on Oracle.
That's why this thing is completely inconsistent. First of all the "other products", presuming they were management ones, would not be licensed for each database: they would be an across the board license. Same would be the case with EM and we all know it is free, don't we? (NOT!)
So exactly how much was spent on EM to "save" the $9.5M? You see, as soon as I hear something like this news bit, I read it as newspeak for "we 'saved' heaps, but we won't tell you how much we spent on the new product and it will all be well hidden in the books". Which is exactly how these things are handled nowadays. And why I find this type of news piece a total nonsense driver.
But let's not allow common sense and truth interfere with "good" marketing... Received on Thu Jan 05 2012 - 16:42:14 CST