Disappointment

[Ender]

Regarding corporations needing networked runtime because of the cost of full versions. No they don't - they buy huge licenses and discounts are built in - it's not like they are paying $300 per seat.

Ya, I think we only pay somewhere around $40-$50 a seat for annual maintenance. Although that's pretty low compared to the full upgrade pricing, it still adds up when you're talking a couple hundred seats. But in the big picture of the annual IT budget, it's not a big deal.

[Genx]

Well, if you deliver the whole product to them using a free database server and code the whole thing in perl or php or ruby etc., then you won't have to pay any license fees and your hourly rate can be much higher... unless of course the project would take you three times longer to finish (forgetting about the learning curve part) so your hourly rate would have to come right back down to keep the total project cost the same.

Yeah, I've been learning PHP for the past few months and it's really quite straight forward. Well, the hourly rate isn't an issue because they are really paying for not having to pay for FM Licenses. Here's your issue though, what is the point of FM at all in that case? Why not just use MySQL or PostgreSQL?

[gbrown]

Wow! I was expecting to get blasted for ranting about a new release!

I too started with FMP in 1990 (what version was it back then 1.x - 2.0???)? Having had that history I can make this point - FM has their niche market - it is the same niche market they went after in 1990. But the program certainly isn't the same is it? The simple fact that there is a developer community such as this should tell them something. The program has evolved into something much more powerful than the hobbiest/home user program (that all the "real" database guys laughed at) that it was then. But their business model hasn't changed a bit. Hello McFly?

With regards to to profits this is one of the things that upsets me so much. Do you think that Adobe is making their AIR runtime free so they can lose money?: Even their development program Flex 2 that was pretty expensive is going open source with Flex 3. So my point in making the runtime able to connect to data sources is ALL about profits. The benefits of this is a whole additional conversion but it's mostly useless as this feature doesn't fit in their 1990 business model.

Oh, and one release per year? Compared to open sources 5 or 6+ per year???

Regarding FM's present "niche" have you seen Coghead? (www.coghead.com) Or how about www.awareim.com (very powerful - relational, incoming emails, etc. and easy to use and cheaper than FMP - $1500 gets you the server and all the runtimes you want)? They still don't have that FMP GUI that I like so well though!

Greg

[Lee Smith]

Genx,

Use the Reply button, not the Quick Reply.

Lee

[JohnCx]

What you are saying is not the feeling of every corporation who has FileMaker present in their install-base or is thinking about adding it, sorry. You cannot look at a massive multi-national who may be considering FileMaker for lets say a specific function of their human resources department and doesn't need Joe, Sally, Peter and the other 500 people in their department to have access to creating reports and layouts. Please don't tell me, "Oh well eat the cost of the full license at the volume discount and lock them out privilege wise." That's a technical response not an efficient/cost effective business response. If the number of licenses dictates you're going to be paying $50.00 a client for a full copy of 9 then it would mean you would be paying even less if there was a thin client... would it not? A thin client is absolutely nothing more than a networkable runtime that isn't free and produced with a copy of Advanced.

There is absolutely more than enough demand for such a thin client especially now that FileMaker is an easy in to SQL data-sources. Just off the shelf without a volume discount it's worth $100.00 just to have a thin client option to connect your clients, staff etc to that MySQL data in a beautified way and if they would get their act together they could make a fortune lol! Putting together a MySQL database is the easy part. Coding the whole front-end in a desktop technology like C# or a web-based technology like PHP is where the time and effort come into play and FileMaker could take a big chunk out of that market.

Regarding corporations needing networked runtime because of the cost of full versions. No they don't - they buy huge licenses and discounts are built in - it's not like they are paying $300 per seat. The fact that each network seat gets a full copy is probably a bonus to them. FM has to stay in business and pay their developers - cheap network runtimes aren't going to happen. This should have been obvious years ago.

[Genx]

Joe, Sally, Peter and the other 500 people in their department to have access to creating reports and layouts

Bad example...

1) I doubt a multi-national would consider FileMaker when more reliable technologies are available for one-off fess.

2) FileMaker only supports 250 users anyway.

But I agree with you nonetheless on the second paragraph.

[JohnCx]

Wow, are you not aware of the very, very large organizations that use FM for certain needs on a daily basis? Don't make it seem like the product never leaves the shores of medium-sized and small business to venture off into the mega corporate world my friend because you would be very mistaken.

Bad example...

1) I doubt a multi-national would consider FileMaker when more reliable technologies are available for one-off fess.

2) FileMaker only supports 250 users anyway.

But I agree with you nonetheless on the second paragraph.

[Genx]

Meh, If I was a very very large corporation I think I wouldn't risk my data with FM.

[Lee Smith]

What!

Maybe you should consider what you say before you say it.

What the hell is the difference between a small business data, and a multinational corporation? Answer?Nothing. Maybe a few more zeros, but the need to protect, report, etc. remains identical.

Take a look at the Customers that are listed on FileMaker's site.

Lee

[JesseSFR]

Believe it or not Apple actually uses their own product?! We built a php site to monitor their proficiency with different IT/programming skills and the back end was a FileMaker database believe it or not.

[Jonathan9]

With clients I have on Access and FileMaker (and some are large organisations), deploying a limited runtime (with network features) wouldn't be an issue for an end user, none of my end users would want to use development features (and in case my solutions are locked down, I certainly would never permit any end user to toy with the code), so the advantage of having the full version to them is a moot point. It would only be an advantage to an end user, as it'd reduce cost from their point of view.

The lack of this feature definitely has led to managers in companies I work with going the Microsoft route because it's already "there".

As for size of companies and data, I personally have a wide range of clients from small business to large corporates. My largest FileMaker based system is for a large government based client, using a complex and complete bespoke MIS system that I've developed for many years in FileMaker (currently on v8.5), this particular system runs over 3 sites (4 if you count where the server resides) running FM Server and clients over Citrix. It has a many concurrent heavy users, hundreds of thousands of records pass through it a year in numerous tables - it is the most stable system, in fact never ever crashed nor lost any data. So I completely disagree that large companies wouldn't trust their data to it - as a consultant it is your job to education your client and offer the best solution. My solution has proved much more stable than other systems they have centralised data in through large DB providers, I assume I needn't mention names!

I personally wish FM had a wider corporate following.

[Genx]

Okay, I've lost my post twice now so really quick summary.

I apologize for my quick handed dismissal of FileMaker, but I'd like to note a few things.

1) I don't see FedEx up there

2) I don't see United Airlines using FileMaker for their booking system.

3) I think attention to detail here is important, am I the only one noticing the number 500? I believe that's 250 * 2 (then again my maths isn't great)

FileMaker in 500 license environment = not financially smart.

2 FileMaker Servers (at least)

SynkDek

Development Costs

FileMaker Pro Client Cost * 500

FileMaker Pro Yearly Maintenance * 500

Further development costs to reach required legislative standards

Here's where I may see it as wise:

You have an environment where you know you wont exceed 250 FileMaker users at any time, that's it. Why push FileMaker past boundaries which FileMaker Inc itself instates... just because we can...?

Edited July 13, 2007 by Guest

[gbrown]

Would I trust a FMP "backend" for a large deployment? No way. Would I trust a FMP "frontend" for a large deployment? Definitely. I think the new feature of being able to connect to the big databases could really change the course for FM. Can you name another frontend for the big databases that is easy to use and doesn't require coding? I don't know of one.

But once again if you can't connect to it a pretty front end doesn't do you much good. Another thought here is that FM could strip even more functionality out of the runtime - all it needs to do is add/edit/delete and connect to the data.

Greg

[El_Pablo]

Well,

With the release of FM 9 it confirms my first though when I was hired. Unfortunately, I will migrate our databases to SQL Server. For many reasons. The first reason is limited freedom of FM development, the second reason is the cost which is prohibitive and many more.

I started to like FM, but with this release, I see that there isn't much to do with this new release...

Nick

[JohnCx]

1.) United Airlines is using FileMaker in their maintenance and engineering.

2.) There are a lot of companies I think you haven't even bothered to read about that are using FM in some form or the other and are a heck of a lot bigger than FedEX.

3.) No offense, but I don't think you have come to the point in your life yet or in business where you actually know what's expensive and what isn't when you make comments like these. When you start working with getting an Oracle system with a grid backbone online, plus hiring DBA(s) to maintain it then you can start to talk about what's pricey.

The examples you are giving are trying to go beyond what you would be using FileMaker for so forgive me for saying they don't make much sense at all. FileMaker in large corporations is based upon departmental need more often than not.

This 250 figure you keep pulling out is meaningless. That's concurrent use... yeah I guess it would mean something if the server couldn't drop idle connections, but I have personally been in situations before where the install-base was upwards of 500 and very rarely were there complaints about being locked out because connections limits had been reached. But, once again what you are saying by bringing up the example of an airline's booking system doesn't make much sense anyway because FM wasn't designed to meet that kind of a data-load to begin with!

Your legislative arguments make no sense at all to me. As far as law is concerned around most of the globe it's how the data is stored and maintained not the amount of data that is stored to begin with. If you're running with Oracle and you create a FUBAR situation where you have pertinent data loss you're in just as much trouble as if you were with FileMaker.

Your 500 * for maintenance makes very little sense. If you have that big of an install-base you sign a stinking support contract for a set fee or you don't belong in business to begin with!

All of this financial stuff you are talking about is nonsense, sorry man. You must not really have much of a clue as what goes into judging the cost effectiveness for technical expidentures - it involves a lot more planning than how many people will be using a given system.

Sorry if I sound harsh, but I really am totally baffled by some of your comments......

Okay, I've lost my post twice now so really quick summary.

I apologize for my quick handed dismissal of FileMaker, but I'd like to note a few things.

1) I don't see FedEx up there

2) I don't see United Airlines using FileMaker for their booking system.

3) I think attention to detail here is important, am I the only one noticing the number 500? I believe that's 250 * 2 (then again my maths isn't great)

FileMaker in 500 license environment = not financially smart.

2 FileMaker Servers (at least)

SynkDek

Development Costs

FileMaker Pro Client Cost * 500

FileMaker Pro Yearly Maintenance * 500

Further development costs to reach required legislative standards

Here's where I may see it as wise:

You have an environment where you know you wont exceed 250 FileMaker users at any time, that's it. Why push FileMaker past boundaries which FileMaker Inc itself instates... just because we can...?

[Fitch]

Regarding FM's present "niche" have you seen Coghead? (www.coghead.com) Or how about www.awareim.com (very powerful - relational, incoming emails, etc. and easy to use and cheaper than FMP - $1500 gets you the server and all the runtimes you want)? They still don't have that FMP GUI that I like so well though!

Thanks for the links, those are interesting. However, if I understood their licensing info, it's not "all the runtimes you want" at all. In fact, FileMaker may very well come out ahead on pricing, especially with a VLA.

To all the other armchair quarterbacks: do you have any concept of what it takes to push a major product upgrade out the door? This release has some major new stuff (ESS), all kinds of improvements to existing features, and a boatload of bug fixes. Are there features I wish had been included? Of course! And I'm not suggesting that we never question the decision-makers at FileMaker Inc. (BTW, one of the few tech companies in the world to consistently earn a profit every single quarter.) But we hear the same tired chorus every time an upgrade comes out: FileMaker never listens to their users, blah blah blah. Come on, do you really believe that?

Let's just take a moment and give a little love to the developers at FMI. They've done a great job.

[mr_vodka]

I have a feeling they are already working on a layout management solution as we speak right now about it... Perhaps in a 9.5 release. It only makes sense for them to do it eventually. :(

[hayesk]

Well, they existed years ago, so apparently they did happen...

And they stopped doing it for a reason.

But my only concern is that however much the client pays is how much lower my hourly rate has to be.

In effect that is saying more of what your clients pay should go to your pocket instead of FileMaker's? FMI developed the networking code, shouldn't they get paid too?

Now obviously I don't know your cost structure for your business, but the fact remains is that it costs you to develop solutions and it costs FMI to develop the tools that allow you to develop solutions. If your clients can't afford it, they can't afford it.

Peronally, I think FileMaker looked at the costs to offer network clients, and it was probably so small a difference than being able to offer volume licensing for FMPro that it didn't matter.

If FM offered a network thin client at $150 per seat, and FMPro at $160 per seat, people would complain that the network client wasn't cheap enough given that FMPro contained so much more. Yet the cost to FMI was probably fair.

[AudioFreak]

Lets face it every single time FM comes out with a New Version, people complain that it STILL does'nt have "---------". Granted Script triggering would be nice and if you really want it, then buy a Plug-In.

For me a lot of the added stuff I really have no use for except maybe Conditional Formatting, which we could do before it just had to be faked. The Script Folders are really nice too. I'd like to see the same for Fields and Layouts

I do really like the new Server Admin Interface. It's much cleaner then the previous versions and actually feels like a real program now. Also there is deffinately an increase in performance hosting files with Server 9 compared to 8.

All in all I would say that it was a good release.

People with High End Ferraris could complain that it doesn't have a cup holder but common it's still an extremely good car.

Michael

[Gilbert]

xoomaster,

I agree with you 100 %. I love FMP but I am not amaze with 9

:pounce:

[Genx]

FM wasn't designed to meet that kind of a data-load to begin with!

Sure, I say it's not an enterprise class database, you say it is but it isn't.

Just because an enterprise happens to use FileMaker within it's ranks i.e. in one or two departments about the size of a small-medium business it doesn't make it an enterprise class database as you yourself state.

But bringing up database admins... So what is it you think DBA's do for Oracle that wouldn't need to be done for FileMaker? Oh that's right, how stupid of me, they manage millions of records and constantly optimize the database to be more efficient in its work, to process queries quicker.

Gosh, FileMaker must not need that, it optimizes itself I guess (people independent you see, the reason they really charge $x per pop, is cause its got little AI in it who build and maintain the database for you, tweaks your scripts too).

And I mean honestly, who needs customizable levels of indexing or multiple data types per type of data. I mean, 4 types of fields to store text, fixed length number fields... What are they nuts?

Surely SQL providers have no clue what it they are doing, It's not like user defined datatypes could possibly increase the overall performance of database where it's really needed..., I mean surely FileMaker has with its "on, off or Auto" indexing method and its Text and Number data types really optimized database systems by taking indexing and data definition out of the hands of people and putting it into the hands of a basic algorithm.

The point is (and the point i made in my first point) is why take FileMaker beyond its limits? It doesn't pretend to be a real contendor in an enterprise level environment and I think this is further proved by its recent decision to be able to integrate into a large scale SQL system. Sure there is a place for it for example where each department needs a significantly different database system, but honestly.. not enterprise.

Finally, look at the length of that list, I mean honestly, you must have no clue over what a multinational is (especially if you think DBA's are expensive).

And honestly, you can sound as harsh as you like, I don't mind.

Anyway, I really don't have time to argue on this, but to summarize my point for you (just in case your still dumbfounded) - FileMaker is NOT an enterprise class database, nor does it purport to be. Usage within an enterprise for some task does not make it a real contender.

Edited July 14, 2007 by Guest

[Lee Smith]

Genx,

Stop using the the quick Reply.

If you are going to attribute a quote to some one, at least include the name in the quote, or address your reply to them.

Second request.

Lee

[Genx]

It's hard to write a reply without reading what the other person has written. I'll make sure to write longer replies in a word editor and hitting reply from now on. Sorry Lee.

[mr_vodka]

I usually just end up opening a second copy of the browser window so that I can see what was typed. :

[AudioFreak]

Same :

[Reed]

If you use the "Topic Review" link on the reply page, it will open a scrolling sub-form that allows to read previous posts.

[Genx]

Oh, yay, and it just displays and iFrame so it doesn't even refresh the page, that's awesome.

[JohnCx]

No, I don't and if I did you would have been able to quote me on it so stop pullings things out of the air. At no point in time have I classified FM as an "enterprise" class DBMS.

You have no idea what you are referring to when you ask the question about Oracle its featureset or the cost to hire an Oracle certified DBA with over five years of experience, but when you do you sure can come talk to me about it. Why don't you do some investigating yourself before you decide to write what you write?? First, you make a blatant assumption that no large scale businesses trust their data with FileMaker and you are proven wrong. Second, and again without any research you pull the, "(especially if you think DBA's are expensive)" out of your you know what without once again doing any background work.

Here are some average salary figures for an Oracle DBA in some populous cities within the US if you are an Oracle Certified DBA:

http://www.payscale.com/research/US/Certification=Oracle_Certified_Professional_(OCP)_DBA/Salary

I have read over a lot of your posts here on this forum. You're a very savvy young man when it comes to using FileMaker, but please stop assuming you know what in the hell you are talking about as it pertains to all things business! And, if you are going to make these assumptions that you do please do a little bit of research before you dole out something to be a fact. Also, don't quote me on things I have not said.

Thank you. :

Sure, I say it's not an enterprise class database, you say it is but it isn't.

Just because an enterprise happens to use FileMaker within it's ranks i.e. in one or two departments about the size of a small-medium business it doesn't make it an enterprise class database as you yourself state.

But bringing up database admins... So what is it you think DBA's do for Oracle that wouldn't need to be done for FileMaker? Oh that's right, how stupid of me, they manage millions of records and constantly optimize the database to be more efficient in its work, to process queries quicker.

Gosh, FileMaker must not need that, it optimizes itself I guess (people independent you see, the reason they really charge $x per pop, is cause its got little AI in it who build and maintain the database for you, tweaks your scripts too).

And I mean honestly, who needs customizable levels of indexing or multiple data types per type of data. I mean, 4 types of fields to store text, fixed length number fields... What are they nuts?

Surely SQL providers have no clue what it they are doing, It's not like user defined datatypes could possibly increase the overall performance of database where it's really needed..., I mean surely FileMaker has with its "on, off or Auto" indexing method and its Text and Number data types really optimized database systems by taking indexing and data definition out of the hands of people and putting it into the hands of a basic algorithm.

The point is (and the point i made in my first point) is why take FileMaker beyond its limits? It doesn't pretend to be a real contendor in an enterprise level environment and I think this is further proved by its recent decision to be able to integrate into a large scale SQL system. Sure there is a place for it for example where each department needs a significantly different database system, but honestly.. not enterprise.

Finally, look at the length of that list, I mean honestly, you must have no clue over what a multinational is (especially if you think DBA's are expensive).

And honestly, you can sound as harsh as you like, I don't mind.

Anyway, I really don't have time to argue on this, but to summarize my point for you (just in case your still dumbfounded) - FileMaker is NOT an enterprise class database, nor does it purport to be. Usage within an enterprise for some task does not make it a real contender.

Edited July 14, 2007 by Guest

[mr_vodka]

Now now gentlemen. Lets keep it civil. We are all entitled to our opinions but please refrain from personal attacks. Keep it clean guys. :

[JesseSFR]

I would like to point out the fact that we are bunch of grown men/women arguing in a chat room. Quiet frankly, I think it's awesome and at the same time ridiculously hilarious. It shows the passion that people have for their livelihoods and shows the value of actual discussion, which of course occasionally degrades into name calling and insults but hey... we're human.

I think someone already said this a thousand times, FileMaker has it's niche and it does very well there. FileMaker is one of the, if not the best relational database for developing easy-to-use, powerful solutions in a short period of time with little or no programming /relational knowledge. It's closest competitor Access doesn't even hold a flame to it.

On top of it's basic functionality, you can also make FileMaker do some amazing things if you have the right skill set, but just because you can doesn't mean it's the best tool for the job.

That said, even if it's not the best tool it doesn't mean it CAN'T work. There are many large companies and corporations that leverage this technology in varying degrees and achieve things that even the biggest FileMaker proponent would probably attempt to dissuade them from trying.

What it comes down to is most of us agree that it's an excellent, dynamic product that provides us with some powerful development tools. Wether it's expanded ESS integration or better layout management the product will always improve but not necessarily always including the functionality we most desire at that time. I think our time is best spent expanding the possibilities of FileMaker within the parameters of whichever release we happen to be using at the time. No matter what happens, with each upgrade there will always be "missing" components that we aren't happy with. There is no end to desire so of course there will always be ideas left out. FileMaker 9 might not be perfect, but with a little bit of elbow grease, it can tackle just about any job you throw at it.

[Robert Collins]

It doesn't look like they have added the ability to assign tabs as buttons for triggering scripts (correct me if I am wrong)

I know there are workarounds for this but this should have been possible since tabs were introduced.

[Steven H. Blackwell]

It doesn't look like they have added the ability to assign tabs as buttons for triggering scripts (correct me if I am wrong)

Using the FileMaker supplied plug-in or one of the other event triggering plug-ins there is a way to do this. It is not wholly seamless but it does work.

Steven

[Genx]

Okay honestly, I think somethings may have been misinterpreted here and I have the feeling if I don't stop now I'm going to waste a few more hours which could be better spent billing clients.

Anywho ah, congratulations, you're right, I enjoy making thoroughly unfounded statements (one of my favorite pass times in fact). You see, I absolutely LOVE researching facts and then writing the complete opposite just for fun. I know very little about anything really and am quite ignorant and rash in my hormonally imbalanced youth.

But seriously, page long posts are a crime, too much reading and the replies take just as long to write. And honestly, I'M AUSTRALIAN, surely I have better things to do like lazing around in front of the TV and doing nothing but eating Vegemite all day, that is, before I hop on a Kangaroo and go running through the desert.

But my point is, 2 things.

1) Seriously... 500 people in the HR department of an organization? You think a couple of hundred k a year is going to matter to them? Even if those people in HR were on an average of 30k a year (which i doubt), that company would be forking out 15,000,000 a year on their employment... and if that's the HR department (those guys are usually responsible for HR)... well than thats a freakin large organization.

2) Seriously, next time pick a more reasonable number and I'll like you more (big numbers frighten confused people like me).

And now I'm probably going to be yelled at for being off topic, which I am, but I thought I'd have fun with my last post.

PS, I really do hope you have a sense of humor otherwise my ridiculous level of talent is going to waste.

PSS.

Also, don't quote me on things I have not said

Note that quotes look like the above, and I haven't "quoted" you as saying anything other than what you've said.

Serious Part:

Anyway really, I think I'm pushing it now, even by my standards, however I would like to make it clear that my statements are not unfounded; I was well aware of the payment received by database administrators (Oracle or otherwise), as I am with the appropriate usage of a SQL system.

You provided an example of 500 users, I merely responded with my personal opinion that I wouldn't use a FileMaker host / client based solution in that situation. You then seem to have taken my personal opinion as an attack against FileMaker (people really have to stop doing that) and made the statement that many extremely large organizations use FileMaker within their ranks, and I will admit that I may have taken on the assumption or more accurately: I may have interpreted your post in a manner which presented an opinion that FileMaker was to be relied upon as a mission critical system subject Business Continuity and DR compliance, as well as specific legislation relating to the integrity of the data stored in databases relating to specific industries (and not just a tack on database created for a specific purpose in a department somewhere).

On an unrelated note, before you run away with your SQL as a backend idea, for your sake I suggest you go and do some research on it's purpose.

Edited July 14, 2007 by Guest

[Robert Collins]

Using the FileMaker supplied plug-in or one of the other event triggering plug-ins there is a way to do this. It is not wholly seamless but it does work.

Steven

The Filemaker supplied plug-in you refer to - is it just included with FM9 or would I already have it with FM8.5 Advanced?

[K1200]

The actual plugin file name itself is WinExample.fmx. ... It can be found on the CD path of:

YourCDDriveLetter:Englis h ExtrasExamplesFMExample FMPlugInSDKExample

This response is from another thread. It seems "extras" aren't part of a normal install, they're only on CD. I confirmed this path for the 8.5 CD.