Has the recent Mac update broken filmmaker 16? I would love to move to 17 but the cost of hosting it on any of the hosting services is prohibitive.

Is filemaker forsaking me and driving me to airtable?

Edited April 15, 20196 yr by Stickybeak

Did Mojave break FM 16? Yeah. But the reality is, they would have to redevelop so much of 16 to make it compatible, it would kill any change at new features. 

FileMaker is not forsaking you. However, the speed of change in the IT world is fast.

How many users do you have? Hosting isn't different between 16 and 17, so why is that a barrier?

I am with FMPHost and if I try to open my solution in fmp17 it tells me its not compatible - so I have to go over to fmp17 hosting which is 4 times more expensive. I have 2 users.

I assume that means your file is being hosted in a shared Server with FMS 14. 

You are correct then, it is not compatible. 

You could try running FM in a virtual machine using an OS that is supported. There aren’t many options unless you host it yourself locally in your office. Or look into FileMaker Cloud. I’m not familiar enough with the pricing of Cliud and AWS to make a solid recommendation in that though. 

Thanks for your input. I looked at aws and it was about the same. Also a 360works plugin would not work.

i think my problem is because FileMaker decided to change the “purchase” model to one which doesn’t really work for amateurs like me. I’ve been with it since it first appeared on pc’s and its availability on Mac when I switched years ago was a factor in my decision to switch.

reading between the lines of your replies I am going to be left high and dry shortly. None of the online substitutes like Airtable are as flexible.

I do hope they figure out a way to get fewer than 5 users licensed for around $20/user/month. That would be more inline with the rest of their pricing.

Currently, the User licensing for 2 people would be about $39/month per user. Essentially getting 5 licenses, but only using 2. If you hosted locally at your office, you could limit the cost expenditure. There is also the possibility of setting up your server on AWS yourself ( meaning not with FileMaker Cloud ). And hosting that way. Again, my experience is limited enough that I'm not 100% certain on the cost going that route.

I'm not sure high and dry is the right description, but I feel for your circumstance. Hopefully, the business generates enough revenue to still get value from FileMaker. You could reach out to FileMaker sales, and see what they can help you with. When I worked in a small office, we bought perpetual licenses with maintenance. The initial cost was higher than the "annual" cost, but the year-over-year maintenance cost was 1/5th of the normal cost. That kept us up-to-date with the latest versions, for a very reasonable cost. ( after the first year, our cost was about $9/month per user.