Osman Posted July 19, 2007 Share Posted July 19, 2007 Hi, I wonder if FileMaker Runtime files works with sql databases lively? Thanks cabi Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Søren Dyhr Posted July 19, 2007 Share Posted July 19, 2007 No! unless you makes embedded applescripts deal with this application: http://www.rtlabs.com/index.html --sd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GalainHH Posted July 20, 2007 Share Posted July 20, 2007 No! unless you makes embedded applescripts deal with this application Is this sure? This means, in FM9 Full-Versions you can handle SQL Tables, that are integrated, but when runnig a FM-Runtime, this won´t work?? This is very important for me. I´m looking for a solution to update WebShops "directly". So I was interested in FM9 capabilities to handle SQL Tables. So, this means, that FM9 is worthless for my Solution (regarding this particular feature) as I cannot sell my solution for "Runtime" Customers. Is this right? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HALBURN Posted July 23, 2007 Share Posted July 23, 2007 I just tried to get MySQL working with a test FM9 runtime build and it does not work. This is very disappointing considering the fact the FileMaker has once again failed to release an thin client for developers. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven H. Blackwell Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 I am not surprised that it does not work. And be careful what you ask for in terms of a "thin-client." How much, per seat, would you be willing to apy for it? And how much would you be willing to apy for its Server version? Steven Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Søren Dyhr Posted July 24, 2007 Share Posted July 24, 2007 I am not surprised that it does not work Neither am I! So, this means, that FM9 is worthless for my Solution (regarding this particular feature) as I cannot sell my solution for "Runtime" Customers I've always felt this kind of mom-and-pop-shop desires to circumvent lack of real programming knowledge utterly pennywise but pound foolish, after having spend ridiculous amount of time in an organization believing that IWP'ed solutions could replace the sale of real copies. Why does such turnkey aspirations occure in peoples heads?? Are they gamblers?? Be prepared (the old scouts motto) instead of wishfull hoping oranges will land in your turban - How unfortunately it might feel, does it however demand spit and polish to get there! --sd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HALBURN Posted July 25, 2007 Share Posted July 25, 2007 I am not surprised that it does not work. And be careful what you ask for in terms of a "thin-client." How much, per seat, would you be willing to pay for it? And how much would you be willing to pay for its Server version? FM Thin client: $25-$50 FM Thin server: $100-$250 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Shadow Posted July 25, 2007 Share Posted July 25, 2007 You must have lost a few zeros somewhere. The server for thin clients will cost more than current FM server, not less. It will do everything the current server does, plus be capable of supplying the extra that the "thin" client would not be able to do. Or was your server price "per seat"? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genx Posted July 25, 2007 Share Posted July 25, 2007 Yeah I'd agree with the other guys. Probably somewhere around 150 US a seat for server, nothing for the thin client though. And with no development features, i think that would be more than reasonable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vaughan Posted July 25, 2007 Share Posted July 25, 2007 The thing I've always liked about FM Server is that pricing isn't based on the seat count. It has a max of 250, and you can use as few or many as you want. I can see what people *want* with thin clients etc, but I'd like to see these same people come up with a business plan for FMI that supports it. Because there is nothing in it for FileMaker Inc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genx Posted July 25, 2007 Share Posted July 25, 2007 Well, put it this way - Its like distributing Windows with Visual Studio Professional Edition (costs about twice as much as the more expensive versions of vista) - That's the main thing that annoys me - Paying for unneeded stuff. Id happily pay 2-3k for a true developer version, get rid of "Fm Pro" all together and integrate fairly cheap server licensing.... Oh well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Søren Dyhr Posted July 25, 2007 Share Posted July 25, 2007 Genx I largely dissagre with your last post here, and considering your young age - could you in my humble opinion benefit from a different perspective - read this: http://www.ncsociology.org/sociationtoday/v21/merit.htm What about competing on something else than price? I feel this intend of foilwrapping solutions is daft, when with a tool designed for workgroups ...think of yourself as slightly more accomplished than the avarage user, but let them for gods sake develop the meat and potato tasks themselves ...and come in to thier rescue when they've painted themselves into a corner of cluttered RG's, globals and repeating fields. Well you might not keep you in enough cashflow to hire a cute secretary who you at christmas could pursuade up on the photo copyer ... but isn't there more to life than that?? I know that meritocracy is utopia, and that our position in life more is a matter of pampering and manners, than price or a gamblers luck. Outside the old world does it mistakenly appear as if class and connections is of less importance, but how come that a baseball coach, who served in national guard intead of taking part in real combats have landed himself in the oval room. http://edstrong.blog-city.com/corrupt_america_class_wealth__politics.htm ...and Paris Hilton have found an urge to fledge herself with the feathers of a rock/pop star as well. So Genx don't Las Vegas on this, you need to buy you access to the influence, or even better! You need to let your customers pay the price. --sd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HALBURN Posted July 25, 2007 Share Posted July 25, 2007 You must have lost a few zeros somewhere. Yes, some zeros are definitely missing because I already spent them with FileMaker for their overpriced FM9 upgrade. The upgrade price from FM8 should not be the same price as upgrading from FM7. FileMaker is getting too greedy! I would gladly pay three times money more for a developer version of FileMaker that would allow me to create a networkable runtime solution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HALBURN Posted July 25, 2007 Share Posted July 25, 2007 (edited) Here is an example of a job that I will either lose or be forced to do with an alternative to FileMaker. I have a large hotel chain that is interested in a computerized time clock solution for each location. Each hotel will have a single computer with a touchscreen that they run the time clock on. None of the data needs to be sent anywhere but the managers of each hotel want the ability to access the time clock from their homes so they can make corrections and generate the weekly payroll reports. Unless I implement some convoluted import and export system on the runtime solution my client would be forced to purchase multiple copies of FileMaker for each hotel. Even if they have to buy one copy for each hotel and use IWP, it's still too much money. FileMaker wants too big of a piece of the pie for me to compete with other developers using things like Flash and MySQL. The bottom line is that I often compete against other solutions and on some projects I do not stand a chance of getting the work because of FileMaker's network runtime limitation. Edited July 25, 2007 by Guest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Søren Dyhr Posted July 25, 2007 Share Posted July 25, 2007 I often compete against other solutions and on some projects Maybe you should only think of the runtime ONLY as a mean to get the foot in the door ...a path to a workgroup! These kind of competitions, often is a test of who could afford to loose most money, the flash/java/html/php/MySQL solutions, have more severe debuggings to get thru, even if planned pretty sensible. --sd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ano Nimus Posted July 26, 2007 Share Posted July 26, 2007 I would gladly pay three times money more for a developer version of FileMaker that would allow me to create a networkable runtime solution. Only three times? For FMI, the gained revenue from that would be drops in the ocean against the loss in revenue from not selling FMP licenses (apart from the single boxes) anymore. That loss, I suppose, would have to be reflected in the price of FM Developer versions, we might be looking at (wild guess from my side) a tenfold increase in price rather than threefold. And what about the developers who don't want to create runtimes? FMI would need to develop a seperate version that excludes that feature or lose those buyers. More trouble/costs for them, not to mention having the added marketing issue of adding a new product to the product line. Whilst thin clients would be great for developers/end-users, what's in it for FMI? Note that I'm not qualifying nor quantifying FMIs 'greediness', I'm not privy to their profit margins. And who knows how much influence the hq at Cupertino has on the pricing policy? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genx Posted July 26, 2007 Share Posted July 26, 2007 "Whilst thin clients would be great for developers/end-users, what's in it for FMI?" ... a real developer base? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ender Posted July 26, 2007 Share Posted July 26, 2007 "Whilst thin clients would be great for developers/end-users, what's in it for FMI?" ... a real developer base? Hey, don't I count?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Genx Posted July 26, 2007 Share Posted July 26, 2007 Lol, by real I meant larger - though i am sure you are real :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vaughan Posted July 26, 2007 Share Posted July 26, 2007 My experience is that professional quality solutions have to be networkable. People start off with one user, then as things scale up they want multiple users to be able to do the work. I can't believe that a hundred bucks for a software license for FM Pro (even if it's per seat) is going to kill a deal for a commercial productivity application. As for a large hotel chain baulking at buying licenses of FM Pro, sheesh. It's time for YOU developers to SELL THE BENEFITS of a networked solution. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Søren Dyhr Posted July 26, 2007 Share Posted July 26, 2007 I can't believe that a hundred bucks for a software license for FM Pro (even if it's per seat) is going to kill a deal for a commercial productivity application Indeed, there must be an error in the way the profit is supposed to be made! --sd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ender Posted July 26, 2007 Share Posted July 26, 2007 As for a large hotel chain baulking at buying licenses of FM Pro, sheesh. Yeah, what's HALBURN complaining about?? Wait, let me ask: "HALBURN, what are you complaining about?" One license per hotel is peanuts. We've got hundreds of licenses, and we ain't no large hotel chain. But a good [networked] database system can be a big productivity boon. It's about ROI (Return On Investment). Can the company save time (time=money) by using your database instead of whatever they are doing now? In the case of FileMaker vs. the other guy's system, which will be cheaper to develop and support in the long run? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ano Nimus Posted July 27, 2007 Share Posted July 27, 2007 "Whilst thin clients would be great for developers/end-users, what's in it for FMI?" ... a real developer base? Maybe, but real developer base or end-user-toy, FMI will likely go for the model that yields most for themselves - I just can't see the financial benefit for FMI. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HALBURN Posted July 27, 2007 Share Posted July 27, 2007 Yeah, what's HALBURN complaining about?? Wait, let me ask: "HALBURN, what are you complaining about?" One license per hotel is peanuts. We've got hundreds of licenses, and we ain't no large hotel chain. I can only assume that you did not read my post past the phrase "a large hotel chain". My example was a solution for a digital time clock, not a database that they are networking and running the entire hotel chain on. I am talking about a simple solution running on a single computer with some sort of remote accessibility via a FM client or a web browser. My point was that with the current FileMaker network runtime limitations this will most likely end up being done by someone using something other than FileMaker. So let's take a look at the numbers and see who loses on this transaction? Let's say that I can buy a volume FMP license at $100 per copy. That means that FileMaker wants a $50,000 piece of the pie right off the top. Regardless if it's just being used for a time clock or running the entire hotel reservation system. I probably could have made $30,000 on this transaction if I could create a FileMaker runtime that would run on a network. If FileMaker had a $25 thin client they could pull in around $12,000 on this transaction. Instead, neither of us make a nickel and we lose the project to someone using a free open source solution or a solution with a free networkable thin client. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven H. Blackwell Posted July 27, 2007 Share Posted July 27, 2007 You know, fellows, they are well aware at FMI of this so-called "thin client" issue. It's looked at from time to time. It's as much a business and revenue model issue as it is a technical one. I am not big personally on the thin-client concept, but, who knwos? Maybe one day it will appear. About the same time FMP disappears perhaps? Steven Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HALBURN Posted July 27, 2007 Share Posted July 27, 2007 I think you guys have it backwards, FileMaker would make more money (not lose money) if they released a free thin client and a "slim" server. They don't need to give away the entire farm but perhaps they could give us developers a few cows to work with instead of just a couple of chickens that only lay sterile eggs. How about a free thin client that would work with a slim server in the $200 price range? A server that allowed a limited number of simultaneous users. Perhaps something like the FMS9A developer version but increased to maybe 5 users. Imagine the new places that FileMaker solutions would go where they currently are not! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HALBURN Posted July 27, 2007 Share Posted July 27, 2007 I am not big personally on the thin-client concept I am curious why you are not? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Søren Dyhr Posted July 28, 2007 Share Posted July 28, 2007 FileMaker would make more money (not lose money) if they released a free thin client and a "slim" server Where would you find data that substantiate this POW? This isn't a particuar terra nulius they would be trespassing here, Runtime Revolution and Servoy already roam here - isn't it a more sensible thing to build ones own customer segment instead hogging in someone elses?? --sd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven H. Blackwell Posted July 28, 2007 Share Posted July 28, 2007 I am curious why you are not? Too disruptive to the established customer base, and there is no basis for assuming that it would benefit FMI. As I said before, they do consider it from time to time. But, from a market mode perspective, it is very complex. Steven Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Søren Dyhr Posted July 28, 2007 Share Posted July 28, 2007 But, from a market mode perspective, it is very complex Indeed, further more might some of this rub off to their daughter companies: illustrates the importance of designing new products around the needs of the user, not the demands of the technology. Too many technology firms think that clever innards are enough to sell their products, resulting in gizmos designed by engineers for engineers ...as well as this: is that smart companies should sometimes ignore what the market says it wants today. I've snipped it brutally, from this: http://www.economist.com/opinion/displaystory.cfm?story_id=9302662 --sd Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
This topic is 6116 days old. Please don't post here. Open a new topic instead.
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now