Another FMP 11 Disappointment

[K1200]

Q: Will my chart display in my runtime solution?

A: Charts will not render in a runtime solution.

This is from the FAQ in the FMP 11 release notes.

Has anyone confirmed this behavior?

[David McQueen]

That was mentioned on another list. It was surmised that it was a similar issue to PDF's. PDF technology from Adobe is not licensed for runtimes, so it is not included.I guess it would have cost FileMaker Inc a ton of money to extend the license.

[K1200]

I can understand that it's a money issue with Adobe -- and that Adobe is driving the wagon.

But I can't understand why Filemaker would take the same approach with charting. The FM 11 implementation of charts is the most simplistic I've seen in 20 years of computing. Why doesn't Filemaker write a properly-integrated set of capabilities? Are they purposefully trying to cripple runtimes? -- and developers? A couple more of these and they will succeed. Already, my users can't run IWP or generate PDFs. Now this.

Maybe it's time for a Tea Party Movement at the Developer's Conference?

[TheTominator]

It is just as well. The built-in charting is so anemic that it is grossly inadequate for my runtime solution.

The DIY method I use in FM 10 with a Web Viewer and calculated javascript is superior for my scatterplot needs.

Unless I am missing something, FM11 built-in line charting only plots the Y-axis with the X-axis simply being evenly spaced labels and not an actual coordinate. Thus it doesn't actually do X-Y plots.

[Zcast]

So, what you are saying is that there is really no true benefit in upgrading to an ADVANCED version of FM, as in nothing works in a runtime solution?

[TheTominator]

So, what you are saying is that there is really no true benefit in upgrading to an ADVANCED version of FM, as in nothing works in a runtime solution?

If you would like the features of FileMaker Advanced, there is certainly benefit in upgrading from Pro to Pro Advanced.

The runtime distributable version produced from Advanced is limited in a few specific ways compared to running a copy of

FileMaker Pro or FileMaker Advanced directly.

With the runtime engine you cannot edit databases.

You cannot participate in FileMaker networking.

You cannot create PDF files directly from FileMaker.

You cannot display the new charts.

If you are asking the question of:

Should I build my runtime databases using FileMaker 11 Advanced instead of FileMaker 10 advanced?

No, not if the new Charts feature is your only incentive.

Yes, if you really want to provide the new Quick Search feature.

Yes, if there is a show-stopper bug in 10 that is fixed in 11 (I don't know yet of a bug that falls into this category).

No, if you want to continue to support Mac OS X 10.4 users.

[devices99]

That is very disappointing to hear, I know the charts are pretty basic, but probably in a version or so time, they'll be more advanced. So it's pity they couldn't have internal non-licensed code, like the excellent Access/Excel charting, which I've been using since the late 1990s in Access runtime systems.

The PDF thing is annoying, I've just posted about it separately.

[MSPJ]

I agree. I'd rather pay another $50 to cover license fees rather than have to spend hundreds of dollars to register a plug in that is more difficult to use. Though given the premium for the Advanced version, I think it ought to be included, anyway.

[fmbiz.net]

This exact same question was brought up during a FileMaker Sales demonstration. The FileMaker representative explained it this way:

"FileMaker runtime solutions were intended to be royalty free distributions. If you add PDF and Charting, you then have to include licensing costs for each of these features. This licensing cost would apply to EACH copy of the runtime solution that you distribute."

So as a developer I sympathize with your frustration, but I would prefer that they leave it as royalty-free and let me add additional licensing options if needed via 3rd party applications.

Best Regards,

FMBiz.net

[comment]

Well, that describes things as they are - but I believe the complaint is about what could have been (and still can).

Is it really necessary (or smart) to license PDF technology from Adobe? PDF is now an open standard. Anyone can produce a PDF from a runtime (as they can from any application) simply by printing to PDF. Some applications - even freewares - shorten the process for you by providing a direct export. Not a dime out of that goes to Adobe. So what exactly is the value added by Adobe here?

I could go on about the charts, but I think I have made my point already.

[David McQueen]

Well, that describes things as they are - but I believe the complaint is about what could have been (and still can).

Is it really necessary (or smart) to license PDF technology from Adobe? PDF is now an open standard. Anyone can produce a PDF from a runtime (as they can from any application) simply by printing to PDF. Some applications - even freewares - shorten the process for you by providing a direct export. Not a dime out of that goes to Adobe. So what exactly is the value added by Adobe here?

I could go on about the charts, but I think I have made my point already.

I doubt that PDF is open source. Rather I think you have parallel development or reverse engineering. this happens in the Linux world all of the time. code is not published so someone writes parallel open source code that does the same thing.

The upside is that it is open and free. The downside is Adobe controls the game and can push the technology wherever they think it should go and the open source developer has to go back to the drawing board with no blueprint.

[TheTominator]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Portable_Document_Format

Formerly a proprietary format, PDF was officially released as an open standard on July 1, 2008, and published by the International Organization for Standardization as ISO/IEC 32000-1:2008.

What FileMaker licensed was use of a canned library of tools so that they didn't have to code their own solution from scratch.

Edit: To bring it back to the original post in this thread, they probably did the same in licensing a third-party's charting solution.

Edited May 14, 2010 by Guest

[David McQueen]

I stand corrected. Thanks for that.

[comment]

What FileMaker licensed was use of a canned library of tools so that they didn't have to code their own solution from scratch.

That would be my guess too. But if you Google for "pdf library" you'll see there is no shortage of alternatives - even free ones.

[mr_vodka]

Yes I am more than sure that the next version will have more of chart types available from the Chart Director library, whom FMI licensed the charting from.

I guess FMI either ran out of time to test or decided with intent to not release all the types now and wait to include more the next time as a marketing measure.

It seems as though with a typical license of Chart Director, one has access to all the chart types.

http://www.advsofteng.com/gallery.html

[TheTominator]

That would be my guess too. But if you Google for "pdf library" you'll see there is no shortage of alternatives - even free ones.

If they looked hard enough it could well be that FileMaker may have found a third-party code source that has compatible licensing, is robust and full-featured, is multi-platform, has commercial support, and is also freely redistributable.

I expect that they took the shortest path to achieving most of these these goals and sacrificed the freely redistributable aspect. After all, anybody who wants that functionality in the runtime already has it on Mac OS X or can use the free alternatives (e.g CutePDF) on Windows.

[comment]

I expect that they took the shortest path to achieving most of these these goals and sacrificed the freely redistributable aspect.

Exactly. And I can't think of a solution where the developer would want a tighter control over this than a runtime. So in the end, the sophisticated user with a server and 10 FMP licenses can click a button to produce a PDF - but Joe Sixpack that downloaded a runtime has to install a third party add-on and follow the instructions.

[mbsteed]

Yes, I just went to the trouble of putting all the charts into my FM application, only to find out that those didn't show up in the runtime version. What a waste of time! That is one of the reasons I upgraded - very frustrating - probably this was in some fine print somewhere. Really, they should have put some warning right into the program when you go to drag a chart on the layout - Warning this will not show up in a runtime application.

This seems like false advertising to me. I had gone through the videos and scanned the descriptions before purchasing and I saw no disclaimer about the runtime issue.

Arg!

Edited May 20, 2010 by Guest

[bruceR]

You saw no disclaimer. And you looked where? Since it is pretty well known that there are *some kind of restrictions* on the runtime then it really seems up to you to read the manual or look over the runtime restrictions.

[K1200]

I'm with mbsteed on this one. I've developed under FMP since 8.0 and it was only after spending serveral days last year implementing IWP features that I discovered they weren't supported in runtimes. And there were no clear statements in the technical help sections.

FileMaker has a reputation for being secretive in their feature development -- and for being subtle to the point of misleading about shortfalls in the software.

Case in point: just look at the fiasco involving the FM 11 runtime libraries. They knew they were taking a "shortcut" approach, but they didn't advertise the change. Only when developers spoke up, did they see fit to release the proper set of software (a revised release of all the runtime libraries -- see their web site for details).

In my opinion -- based on my four years of using FMP -- I believe they will continue a half-hearted approach of supporting runtimes until developers say "enough is enough".

As I've commented before, I can accept the "license issue" for not having PDF capability, but for charting and IWP, there is no acceptable excuse. Developers are being hampered in their ability to compete in the marketplace -- and runtime users are being shortchanged in commonly-expected features.

[Søren Dyhr]

Developers are being hampered in their ability to compete in the marketplace

I have said this over and over again, nothing emitted from under the apple umbrella ... have ever been developer- but rather user- centric.

It's simply not profitable enough a marked to be in, to dance the beat of the whims (drums) of propellar heads, and especially not those disinclined to learn proper programming.

The thought of moving out of the garage in an mom and pop shop, solely on issuing runtimes to even deeper ignorants have very little commercial bearing as I see it.

It's a misunderstanding of the niche, Filemaker Inc. have managed to carve for itself. Opposed to other competing products is the focus "Groupware" what ever it then mean with all it's implications.

If you lack skills in social networking or marketing, but are insisting on nerding on till you have accomplished the selfpromoting vehicle - must you ensure that the wealth you have been surviving on until now, could be sustained infinite - provided you have locked yourself to filemaker. I wouldn't however say it's impossible in other tools - but I lack the knowledge to see it should be possible.

There is an arms race in featuring this and that to keep some kind of attachment to what the markeds demands ... look at filemaker here and observe that marked demands by and large is ignored and the new selling features usually seems surprising in sprawling in weard new directions ... think of when everybody more or less have given up upon demanding event triggers as a native tool, do they suddenly out of the blue arrive some 15-20 years after nerds have frowned over the lack of those.

Sell your solutions to organizations able to lift the burden of buying licenses of the tool, or learn a programming language. Most succesful people in this business have worked very, very hard at what they do in order to get where they are - by not regarding this tool or any other tool (including talent) for that matter as a shortcut to fortune..

To me does it seem like a lot annoyance over tools not being up to something falls here:

no one has a “magic” piece of gear. Sure, we all like certain devices for specific things and good tools are good tools. But the real results come from those who know how to use them. Modest tools used by true pros will always produce better results than the best tools on the planet in the hands of a hack.

...a snippet picked up on ProSoundWeb, but however pretty universal!

--sd

[bruceR]

I'm with mbsteed on this one. I've developed under FMP since 8.0 and it was only after spending serveral days last year implementing IWP features that I discovered they weren't supported in runtimes. And there were no clear statements in the technical help sections.

FileMaker has a reputation for being secretive in their feature development -- and for being subtle to the point of misleading about shortfalls in the software.

Case in point: just look at the fiasco involving the FM 11 runtime libraries. They knew they were taking a "shortcut" approach, but they didn't advertise the change. Only when developers spoke up, did they see fit to release the proper set of software (a revised release of all the runtime libraries -- see their web site for details).

In my opinion -- based on my four years of using FMP -- I believe they will continue a half-hearted approach of supporting runtimes until developers say "enough is enough".

As I've commented before, I can accept the "license issue" for not having PDF capability, but for charting and IWP, there is no acceptable excuse. Developers are being hampered in their ability to compete in the marketplace -- and runtime users are being shortchanged in commonly-expected features.

But FileMaker is the opposite of secretive.

They have always provided documentation that clearly explains the limitations of runtimes. This is described in "Appendix A - Feature comparison of the runtime application with FileMaker Pro" of fmpa11_development.pdf.

Like PDF, charting is a licensed technology and this is identified as such and is not available in runtimes. If you didn't read the manual, whose responsibility is that? What else could they have realistically done?

[comment]

I didn't know one was supposed to read the manual before buying a product.

I conducted a little experiment: I went to FMI's site as a prospective buyer. I rummaged around that site as a prudent - even skeptical - buyer should. I pressed every "Learn more", "Top questions to ask before you buy", "Tech Specs" and "Help me choose" link I saw - and I couldn't find any disclaimer (or even a hint) about ANY limitations of the runtime.

[bruceR]

So your realistic suggestion would be what? Really.

Where do you find the commercial license restrictions on MySQL, for instance?

For what product is the buyer's imaginary and unexamined set of features and limitations acceptable as the product definition? Frankly your position is absurd.

I find this (tech specs)

http://www.filemaker.com/products/filemaker-pro/pro-11-specifications.html

Which leads to this (product documentation)

http://www.filemaker.com/support/product/documentation.html

Which leads to this:

http://www.filemaker.com/support/product/docs/fmpa/fmpa11_development.pdf

[mr_vodka]

But FileMaker is the opposite of secretive.

I 100% totally disagree with this statement.

If so, they wouldn't make such an effort to pretend there aren't any bugs or steer so far away from an official bug list.

Link1

Link2

[comment]

Really, indeed. I just said I didn't know one was supposed to read the manual before buying a product - so what's the point in directing me to one? Did you read your car's manual before purchasing it?

The buyer's expected set of features is far from being imaginary or unexamined:

http://www.filemaker.com/products/compare/fmp_vs_fmpa.html

Note that both 'FileMaker Charts' AND 'Runtime Maker' appear on the list - without even a hint of any limitation. If there's no indication of a restriction, is the buyer expected to hunt for it anyway?

[bruceR]

Really, indeed. I just said I didn't know one was supposed to read the manual before buying a product - so what's the point in directing me to one? Did you read your car's manual before purchasing it?

The buyer's expected set of features is far from being imaginary or unexamined:

http://www.filemaker.com/products/compare/fmp_vs_fmpa.html

Note that both 'FileMaker Charts' AND 'Runtime Maker' appear on the list - without even a hint of any limitation. If there's no indication of a restriction, is the buyer expected to hunt for it anyway?

That's not a credible statement. People routinely read reviews, subscribe to consumer and technical magazines, and perform their due diligence in various ways to become deeply familiar with the product they are buying. In both the technology and automotive world there is an entire web industry built on providing this kind of detail. The whole principle is so common and entirely ancient that it is in latin: caveat emptor. It is commonly translated as "buyer beware" but probably a better meaning is buyer be prepared; do your homework.

[comment]

The caveat emptor doctrine has been dead for 100 years (if it ever were alive). And the fact that you bring it up only proves the original point: buyer must beware of the seller, 'cause the seller ain't telling.

That's not a credible statement.

Not credible to you, perhaps. I merely stated the facts.

[bruceR]

Yes, you stated as fact that you choose not to be diligent when making complex product decisions: that the information is complete, well organized, and readily available; and that you are unsatisfied with the predictable results of your actions. If you go on a job interview and describe your strategy for making technology purchasing decisions, what result would you expect?

[comment]

This is not about me, but about FMI. Everything you say serves only to stress the point that one has to exercise what you call "due diligence" (and I would term "excessive investigative efforts") to discover the runtime limitations.

Anyway, I am not getting into a legal debate - I was only getting back at you for assuming I needed caveat emptor explained to me in small words.

[Genx]

Fun Read

Not that I care too much but this is clearly FileMaker being a large $ driven corporation and just trying to get product sales over the line - the consumer really shoudln't be coping any blame.

If FMI was honest and confident about their feature set they would put a standard asterisk / disclaimer combination next to the PDF and Charting dot points in their features list explaining that they were unavailable in run-times.

There's obviously not a whole lot available from a legal standpoint but it doesn't mean that it's morally right. A lot of the people who buy the developer versions struggle to afford them and do so in the hopes that they can sell some run time solutions with the feature sets which seem to be available.

[Søren Dyhr]

in the hopes that they can sell some run time solutions with the feature sets which seem to be available

Where exactly is this advertised? You have a similar feature with duct tape where you can encounter very crafty deployments of but, it's nowhere mentioned you can keep your hearse together with it for another 1000 miles or such ... never the less is it often done, with varying success.

These two Garrison Keiler qoutes says it all:

"Duct tape — it's just about the only thing that really works sometimes" and "Duct tape is more than a miracle adhesive, it's a balm for the soul of the unprepared and inept."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duct_tape#Usage_on_ductwork

You can't blame neither Mogami or Filemaker you lack of inclination to know what you doing...

--sd

[comment]

Where exactly is this advertised?

Here:

http://www.filemaker.com/products/compare/fmp_vs_fmpa.html

[Søren Dyhr]

I mean "thou shalt make a mom and pop shop" with these provisions! - where is it said?

Make a search on the page you link to for the word "runtime" ... nowhere is it said neither fully fledged nor crippled ... you can't say that "solutions" encompass full functionality - there is no strange bias here, you exagerate your interpretation of it ... but as is, can a solution be made - universality isn't implied at all. Just as a Donnay racket not in it self, makes you better smasher in tennis, your arms could e.g. be thin as spaghetti.

Isn't it really a variation of the proverbial "if all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail" or what Lydia said in this movie:

I was promised sex. Everybody said it. You'll be a bridesmaid, you'll get sex, you'll be fighting 'em off. But not so much as a tongue in sight.

From http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0109831/quotes

Please point out to me where the weasel words or fluffiness are in the link you refer to, I can't see where the sobriety is forgotten. Even the included templates are now starting to get much more sensible than earlier.

--sd

[comment]

on the page you link to for the word "runtime" ... nowhere is it said neither fully fledged nor crippled

That's precisely the point. If it doesn't say "crippled", should one assume it is?

you can't say that "solutions" encompass full functionality

Oh, yes - I certainly can. I have written a solution that performs certain tasks, including charting. If the runtime only performs a part of those tasks, that it doesn't run my solution - and Filemaker Pro is required.

I think you are missing the key issue here. This is not a level playground: we start with "mom and pop" knowing nothing about the product, while FMI knows everything. Most manufacturers go to great lengths in order to represent their wares accurately (sometimes even to the point of being absurd e.g. "your mileage may vary" or "batteries not included") to protect prospective buyers from being misled (and themselves from being sued).