FileMaker 8.5 (Runtime Only) Client: $50

[HALBURN]

It is quite frustrating that I can not distribute a multi-user runtime solution without forcing my customers to purchase "full" licenses of FileMaker for each workstation.

FileMaker's current pricing structure seems greedy and outdated. It greatly limits the market potential for FileMaker developers and it prevents FileMaker developers from aggressively marketing their solutions against competing alternatives.

FileMaker needs to offer a new pricing structure for developers that want to distribute networked solutions. They could easily do this by offering a special version of their client that could be networked but is limited to running "only" runtime solutions. They should do the same with their server. Offer a server (at a greatly reduced price) that will only host runtime solutions.

Pricing as follows:

FileMaker 8.5 (Runtime Only) Client: $50

FileMaker Server 8 (Runtime Only): $300

FileMaker Server Advanced (Runtime Only): $500

Does this pricing seem fair to you?

[stefanshotton]

Why not just have a runtime networkable issue like alpha 5 does! ie 3 user, 10 user with different prices.

This way the cost is front end to the developer not to the user!

[Søren Dyhr]

It is quite frustrating that I can not distribute a multi-user runtime solution without forcing my customers to purchase "full" licenses of FileMaker for each workstation.

You could serve the solution via CWP, while you have homebrewed browsers made in runtime-revolution, providing the touch and feel of a genuine application, and even have operation system specific dropdowns and buttons, for Windows, Linux and OS X.

--sd

[ThatOneGuy]

It greatly limits the market potential for FileMaker developers and it prevents FileMaker developers from aggressively marketing their solutions against competing alternatives.

I'd agree with that!

FileMaker's current pricing structure seems greedy and outdated.

... but I'm not sure I'd go that far.

I'm not picking on the price schedule you submitted, but whether it seems "fair" is, at best, secondary to the question of revenue for FileMaker, Inc. I can't overlook the fact that we're benefitting from the rapid and continuing advancements to which FMI has apparently rededicated itself. The economic reality is that it demands sustained revenues.

That being said, I would like to see a thin client model, even if it required a full-fledged (and full-priced) version of FMServer. Not only is having the standard FM app on every user's machine an expensive proposition for most companies, I've found it also invites those same end-users to develop on their own. Please don't read that as elitist; it is intended only to mean that many companies do not want to allow or encourage independent development for a variety of reasons, chief of which are security concerns. Could a Thin Client version be sold for $49, or $79, or $99?... that's probably an 18-month price-theory study.

Yet it does seem that FMI is approaching a cross-roads in its strategy. With the relational architecture introduced in FM7, its continued enhancements in subsequent versions, and from what I can see that's coming, FMI is nearing a position where it could make a move to compete with the big boys for portions of the true enterprise-level solution market.

Will FMI make that play? Tough question. Much success has come from its perception that "just about anybody" can create with FM. It has taken great pains to keep the application as user-friendly as it began, but the emerging irony may be that all these welcomed improvements are making FM a more complex endeavor. (Just look at the number of new members joining this forum, the rate at which they're joining, and the types of questions being posted. It's hard to say FMI's business model is not working.)

But FMI's momentum is helping it gain a footing in traditional IT departments. The good news for developers is that FM is not dismissed as quickly as it used to be. The bad news is that it's now having to withstand scrutiny when compared to existing enterprise languages. This opportunity may be too alluring for FMI to decline. (Personally, I'd like to see them go for it!)

Can FMI do both -- "go enterprise" and maintain "the masses?" I'm optimistic it can, but it seems it would require an expansion of the product line. Hey! What about a thin client version?...

[HALBURN]

Can FMI do both -- "go enterprise" and maintain "the masses?" I'm optimistic it can, but it seems it would require an expansion of the product line. Hey! What about a thin client version?...

What is a thin client?

[HALBURN]

Why not just have a runtime networkable issue like alpha 5 does! ie 3 user, 10 user with different prices.

This way the cost is front end to the developer not to the user!

I spent about ten minutes searching the Alpha 5 website trying to determine if it was Mac compatible. Judging from the Windows only screen shots and lack of information regarding platform, I can only assume that it's not.

[ThatOneGuy]

What is a thin client?

Somewhere between a full version of an application and a dumb-terminal installation.

[GeorgeM]

In this case, a "thin client" would be an app that would give a user the full experience of the database as if they had the full FileMaker Pro application - thus without the limitations of Instant Web Publishing - but that client would have none of the tools to create or modify the database or layouts.