Information on FLT

[typewriter]

Is there any background information available on how the new FileMaker Licensing for Teams (FLT) works? And I don't mean the sales stuff that you can find on the FMI website.

I am very interested in differences between 'old style' concurrent licenses and the new FLT scheme, and what information is actually used to identify and validate a licensed user. There is a lot of confusion among developers on this matter and we need to advise our customers based on the right information, don't we?

 

 

Edited July 19, 2016 by typewriter
typo

[Wim Decorte]

This is probably the best write-up that is available from FMI:

https://www.filemaker.com/purchase/store/faq-teams.html

Some of the key points in general:

- FLT includes FMS, old style licensing doesn't always unless you have a site license

- FLT includes all connection types (Pro, Go, WebD), old style licensing only includes Pro with separate connection packs to be bought for Go/WebD

- FLT does not include FM Pro Advanced

- FLT requires you to buy licenses for everyone on the payroll, not just the number of people that will be using FileMaker.  Old style licensing is just for the number of users you need.  Unless you have a site license then it is by headcount as well.

- Under FLT, every time someone connects to the server, it registers as one connection against your total number.  Doesn't matter if it is the same person doing that will all of their devices at once: each connection gets deducted from your total.  If you have a 10-user FLT and one person decides to connect with their laptop, iPhone and iPad then you will only have 7 connections left for the other 9 people.  Officially a user may only use one device at a time.

- if you install the FMP that comes as part of the FLT, then it needs to connect to the FLT FMS within 15 minutes or it will shut down.  Even if you use it just open a local file and not a file hosted on FMS.

 

[IdealData]

Hi Wim

Quote

FLT requires you to buy licenses for everyone on the payroll

Err.. does that mean an entire company even if only a small department needed it?

?

[Wim Decorte]

That's to be negotiated with FMI... typically they will be reasonable especially if it is a well-defined department.

[typewriter]

hi Wim

 

9 hours ago, Wim Decorte said:

FLT requires you to buy licenses for everyone on the payroll, not just the number of people that will be using FileMaker.  Old style licensing is just for the number of users you need.  Unless you have a site license then it is by headcount as well.

You must be kidding. I read through the whole FAQ but couldn't find anything pointing to this. This would close the doors for FMI very quickly indeed. 

Even more, people have assured me that FLT users do not even have to work for the same company! Which makes sense because FLT is 'user connection count' based as opposed to 'company contract' based. Under the old VLA, you could purchase FMS and a license for 10 users. You would receive an installation code that would grant you the right to install and use on 10 workstations. If you changed an installation from workstation A to B, that was OK as long as you didn't break the 10 installations limit. Nothing was checked on the server, but the VLA contract was valid for that company only and users had to work for that same company, preferably in the same building...

But in FLT, every user installation has 'only' to be registered on the FMS in advance, does it? But how? FMS can tell the difference between a Filemaker Pro for connections client and a 'normal' one. But based on what? A unique ID?

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 19, 2016 by typewriter

[Wim Decorte]

2 hours ago, typewriter said:

You must be kidding. I read through the whole FAQ but couldn't find anything pointing to this. This would close the doors for FMI very quickly indeed. 

 

Not really.  FLT is just one of the licensing options and it is not meant to be a good fit for every scenario.  You can still buy the old-style licenses with connection packs.

 

2 hours ago, typewriter said:

Even more, people have assured me that FLT users do not even have to work for the same company! 

 

AFAIK that is not possible.  FLT is meant for individual companies / departments (aka Teams).

 

2 hours ago, typewriter said:

But in FLT, every user installation has 'only' to be registered on the FMS in advance, does it? But how? FMS can tell the difference between a Filemaker Pro for connections client and a 'normal' one. But based on what? A unique ID?

 

The license key used to install FMP tells FMS whether it is a regular FMP that does not count against the total or an FLT copy that does count against the total.

While it may be technically possible to give your FLT installer to someone outside the company, I'm sure you would be breaking the legal agreement.

2 hours ago, typewriter said:

But in FLT, every user installation has 'only' to be registered on the FMS in advance, does it?

Not exactly sure what you mean by this.  When you buy an FLT license you get an FMS license key and that one has the max allowed connection total embedded.

Every time an FLT FMP connects FMS knows by that FMP's serial key that it is an FLT FMP and decrements that number of connections available.

[IdealData]

I'm sorry to repeat, but..

Quote

FLT requires you to buy licenses for everyone on the payroll

I'm with 'typewriter' here - this approach would not make sense and hardly paints the new preferred licensing model in the right light. my operation has an annual site license and THAT is based on employee count or device count. This option is not available until you have a 25 count or higher, so where's the difference between FLT 25+ and an annual site license for the same count?

Is there any supporting documentation that FLT must be for every employee?

Thanks

[typewriter]

I am having an appointment with a FMI representive shortly to sort things out. Too bad FMI is so vague about the terms and conditions (other than the usual 'thou shall not make illegal copies' stuff).

What I am really looking for is a licensing scheme where I

- can purchase the right number of licenses at a reasonable price

- don't have to worry about people runnning off a laptop at home, some terminal server session on a windows server, or an iPad (other than adapting the interface)

- have control over their subscription: if you don't pay, your subscription stops and so does FileMaker Pro (after 15 minutes).

- do not have to employ all those users! That they use my application doesn't mean they have to work for me.

 

I really hope FLT fits the bill. In my part of the world, a 'team' means a group of people working together (on a particular project), not a group of people on the same payroll.

 

 

 

[Wim Decorte]

3 hours ago, IdealData said:

so where's the difference between FLT 25+ and an annual site license for the same count?

The site license is much better since it gives you the ability to mix and match any number of FMS, FMPA and FMP installs, plus you probably have a fair number of WebD and Go connections as well.

Whereas FLT will give you just the one server and FMP, not the ability to use multiple servers and also install FMPA.

 

2 hours ago, typewriter said:

I really hope FLT fits the bill.

 

Why would you hope that?  I repeat: FLT is NOT the only and ideal licensing option so why would you hope that it is?

From what you describe what you are after, FLT is NOT going to be a good fit.  It sounds like you want to charge your customers for a subscription and control whether you they can access your hosted solution?  That is most definitely not an FLT scenario.

[David Jondreau]

On 7/20/2016 at 3:45 AM, typewriter said:

What I am really looking for is a licensing scheme where I

...

- have control over their subscription: if you don't pay, your subscription stops and so does FileMaker Pro (after 15 minutes).

- do not have to employ all those users! That they use my application doesn't mean they have to work for me.

Filemaker is really moving away from this. They don't want you running your own business where you control the licenses for your customers. They want the customer to be buying the licenses.

 

 

[typewriter]

14 hours ago, David Jondreau said:

Filemaker is really moving away from this. They don't want you running your own business where you control the licenses for your customers. They want the customer to be buying the licenses.

 

 

If that is the case, they must be living under a stone. The whole industry is moving to a more 'subscription' based system where access to information and applications is offered as a service, paid or not.

With respect to earlier responses: I checked with FMI, and the FLT is indeed per company. If you have 8 persons in a company accessing an FMS solution, you would purchase FLT with 10 connections. The model that I would like to deploy would be possible with the 'concurrent user license'. This has become much more expensive, but with a reason: you now also have the option to use 'FileMaker Pro for connections' as an alternative to FileMaker Go and WebDirect. As everyone knows, WD is an impressive piece of software, but doesn't offer the flexibility and performance of FMPro.

[Josh Ormond]

Did you ask specifically about the scenario where only 4 of those 8 employees actually access the database?

[Josh Ormond]

The impression I got was that you license each user that is going to access FM ( regardless of whether it's Go, Pro, WebD ).  There is still some ambiguity here, but this is what I see in the marketing pieces.

 

[Wim Decorte]

1 hour ago, typewriter said:

If that is the case, they must be living under a stone. The whole industry is moving to a more 'subscription' based system where access to information and applications is offered as a service, paid or not.

You can still do that if you want to keep FM as your platform.  With custom web publishing...

[typewriter]

On 22 juli 2016 at 4:19 PM, Wim Decorte said:

You can still do that if you want to keep FM as your platform.  With custom web publishing...

...which is the alternative I am seriously considering for certain applications.

But what's worse: think of the FileMaker Go platform. You can build very nice applications for mobile users these days. But how to get data from and into a FileMaker Server if the FMGo user does not work for the same company that operates the server, is a mistery for me. Shelling out $ 400 per user per year is not going to turn into a profitable business...

On 22 juli 2016 at 2:59 PM, Josh Ormond said:

Did you ask specifically about the scenario where only 4 of those 8 employees actually access the database?

Yes, if you have 4 employees actually accessing the database, you'll purchase a 5-user FLT, ofcourse. That's not an issue.

 

 

Edited July 23, 2016 by typewriter

[Josh Ormond]

1 hour ago, typewriter said:

...which is the alternative I am seriously considering for certain applications.

But what's worse: think of the FileMaker Go platform. You can build very nice applications for mobile users these days. But how to get data from and into a FileMaker Server if the FMGo user does not work for the same company that operates the server, is a mistery for me. Shelling out $ 400 per user per year is not going to turn into a profitable business...

Yes, if you have 4 employees actually accessing the database, you'll purchase a 5-user FLT, ofcourse. That's not an issue.

 

 

How are you getting to $400/user per year?

[typewriter]

The short story: my FBA pricelist gives a AVLA price of €4464 for FMS + 10 concurrent connections.

 

The long story:

Say, company X has a database running on FMS which gathers real estate information, and combines this information with other sources and publishes the processed data.

 

Prospectors use an iPad to login, get information on a dayly, or even hourly basis ( I am not making any assumptions on what is relevant or not for the business case). These prospectors are NOT employed by company X, but they are not anonymous either (they are known to the system, pay a yearly subscription fee and have to authenticate with a username and password).

 

Under the current conditions, this would only be possible under a VLA or AVLA contract: a FMS with a number of concurrent licences.

 

The FBA pricelist says:

'The following New Concurrency skus will be sold on an exception basis only if the new FLT model is unsuitable for the customer (for example if "anonymous" concurrency-based usage is required).'

 

There are no other options available.

 

The price depends on the number of 'concurrent users'. With 10 concurrent sessions, this amounts to € 4464,- per year according to the FBA  pricing scheme.

Now, with these 10 sessions I might be able to serve more than 10 registered users. This will depend on the situation, because users are not connected all the time and I may disconnect them after a certain period of inactivity. But for many applications, 10 concurrent sessions may serve not that many more users. You have to guarantee a certain level of quality, and users should not be refused a connection too often.

 

To put things in a different perspective:

In FMS12, the AVLA price was €900,-, for unlimited IWP or FileMaker Go connections (FileMaker Server Advanced). That was long ago ofcourse.

in FMS13, concurrent connections were introduced for WebDirect and FileMaker Go, and for FMS+10 connections, the AVLA price was set at € 948, with €300,- for 5 extra connections. This price stayed at the same level for FMS14.

In FMS15, the price for this same configurations went up to €4464,-!! 

Edited July 24, 2016 by typewriter

[Wim Decorte]

13 hours ago, typewriter said:

...which is the alternative I am seriously considering for certain applications.

But what's worse: think of the FileMaker Go platform. You can build very nice applications for mobile users these days. But how to get data from and into a FileMaker Server if the FMGo user does not work for the same company that operates the server, is a mistery for me.

Think outside the box...  FMS makes data available through its XML interface so you can easily construct URL calls to get XML data and then parse that XML.  Think of it as making FMS a poor-man's web service.

Or you can use something like the open-source RESTfm to make FMS a true RESTful web service.  Or you can stick with making calls to PHP pages on the server and get data that way.

 

There are many many options to exchange data with FMS.  Don't get hung up on the cost of FM Go if the licensing is too expensive for you.

The cost of the FM rich clients is because it makes life easy for you.  If you don't want to pay it, it means you'll have to put some more of your own time into it and expend cost that way.

[IdealData]

I've been picking over the words in the FMS EULA...

Quote

(c) User Access. The Software includes the rights to access data stored in the database server using the FileMaker WebDirect web browser client, the FileMaker Pro (for User Connections) client, and the FileMaker Go client (collectively “Client(s)”). You are required to purchase appropriate access for all users that will access the Software. 

"You" is the licensee, notice it does not state that users must be employees.

On this basis the licensee can buy the necessary licenses for the "Prospectors" under FLT. As the server license restricts the access by the FMP(UC), Go and WebD then the license conditions can't be broken.

Typewriter, FLT for 10 is 1488 euros per year.

[typewriter]

1 hour ago, IdealData said:

I've been picking over the words in the FMS EULA...

"You" is the licensee, notice it does not state that users must be employees.

On this basis the licensee can buy the necessary licenses for the "Prospectors" under FLT. As the server license restricts the access by the FMP(UC), Go and WebD then the license conditions can't be broken.

Typewriter, FLT for 10 is 1488 euros per year.

Yes, you are right in what is (not) in the EULA.

But I had a long discussion about this with a FMI sales rep here and he assured me that all users must work for the same company. Perhaps he was not briefed properly by FMI? Or FMI really has not thought this over themselves?

Edited July 24, 2016 by typewriter

[IdealData]

The FMS EULA is riddled with ambiguities. You may be assured by your fmi rep but if it's not on paper and if it went to court a judge would just kick it out. They only deal in paper!

Employers can provide zero hours contracts too! And there's nothing illegal in that in the UK. Maybe different in NL.

Additionally, how would FMI know a non-employee has access?

I would be very happy for FMI to stake their reputation on the license key and then we would all know where we stand.

[Wim Decorte]

5 hours ago, IdealData said:

Additionally, how would FMI know a non-employee has access?

Pretty sure it works just like the site license: FMI expects you to give them a document provided by HR that specifies the headcount at that point in time.  You pay for that number of licenses.  Whether you consume those with employees or non-employees becomes moot, except if there is an interpretation of the EULA that would make that dangerous to do.

 

 

 

[Josh Ormond]

This definitely not the answer I received. The license terms say named users. But it is paying for licenses that are actually being used. Employee count is not important. It is about the number of users accessing FMS. Which is basically what the marketing material says. 

Same answer typewriter received. 

Hopefully they get their heads straight on it. Because their sales reps seem confused on it.