FileMaker Louisville

Two questions:

1) If the clients had to pay per seat, how would that differ from buying FileMaker Pro and opening the same file in it? That's already possible now! And with SBA you have even a very good pricing for a shrink-wrap solution.

2) FileMaker's strongest marketing tool is FileMaker Pro itself. Give it to the users and sooner or later they will create their own simple databases and show FileMaker Pro to their friends. Why do you think FileMaker Inc. will ever decide to dispose of this unique marketing force?

I work with FileMaker since 1991 and I do not miss networking in FileMaker Runtime. What I do miss is some kind of reduced price for small solutions. If FMI offers FileMaker Pro with some kind of limitation which would be OK for small solutions and not OK for large ones, for $100 or less, will you still keep asking for a networking support in Runtime?

The only issue I have with FMI's licensing is that with small solutions I often charge my clients less for my work than for the FileMaker Pro licenses. That simply looks weird at least.

1) When you open the runtime it would ask you do you want to use it standalone, as a server or as a client. At that point, just like a iPhone in-app purchase, it would guide you to FMP's web site and make the purchase to unlock that feature. I would want it priced just like an iPhone in-app say $5. Let FileMaker Inc. make this $5. I'll make my money but selling it on the open market as an application. I'll let the end-use decide how to network it if they so want. 

Brian, your answers only confirm that it is *the price of FileMaker Pro* for clients you use Runtime for rather than the *missing networking in Runtime*. Am I wrong?

Brian, I can see FileMaker doing it for $150 (maybe), but NEVER for $5. You need a find a new class of clients that can afford a few hundred bucks to do their job right. I have customers that use my runtimes and if they want to network them, then that feature costs them $598 and they can do it themselves pretty easily. That's just the price. Developers have talked for a long time about a "thin" FMP client and FMI has never budged on the issue. It is not in the cards. You need to adjust your thinking: features cost money. If your client wants networking, you tell them that feature costs a little extra.

BTW, I've DONE the gymnastics scoring programs, remember? The judges frequently are not at the same table. They are spread out around the floor. Setting up a reliable wireless network is beyond their capabilities, and you do NOT want to run FMP P2P with a flakey network. Don't even THINK about it. You are not serving your clients well in that case. Even setting up a hub and cables is beyond the ability of most people. What you do is sneaker-net it with thumb-drives. You output very small XML files with the scoring data on it to the drive and walk it over to the "server" machine that imports and aggregates the data and prints out the results sheets. That does work with runtimes.

You need a better example of a runtime needing networking. ::-)

Jonathan, I am glad to know I am not alone with my opinon ;-)

To be honest, I was angry when FMI stripped down the Runtime in version 4, but now I think it was the best decision they could make with it.

FileMaker Pro is a great and valuable tool. It is capable of giving its users bigger value than what it costs. Wait, let me repeat this: FileMaker Pro is capable of giving its users bigger value than what it costs. Yes! That's it.

Why would you want the networking ability if it had no value for you?

No, you're not alone. Most FM devs have already come to grips with the reality. If Brian wasn't such a good friend, I'd ridicule him behind his back. (Oh. He is? Oops.)

The way I look at it, a runtime is a sales tool. It shows you what FileMaker can do, but is limited in a collaborative environment. If they want full-blown networked solution, then that costs a little more.

Frankly, I am tickled they even allow runtimes or peer-to-peer without a server. Most other programs don't have any of that. Have you tried creating a runtime of an Excel file lately, or have you tried to network it? We have so much and we B&M about it.

Amen

No complaining here. However, a couple of you do bring up the reality of the situation. Why provide something that is subject to whim and lack of expertise that can make you look bad when it isn't even your fault (speaking on behalf of FileMaker)? Why give someone a loaded gun when they don't know what the trigger is for?

No, there's great value in what FileMaker can do. If someone isn't willing to step up and pay for that value then they have no need of the product.

Go to a swim meet. Do you see how much technology is there? Is that technology cheap or free? I seriously doubt it. No, there was value so the price was paid.

Great example, Jonathan, create a runtime of Excel and share it so you can assemble results and be sure they're accurate and not mixed in some way. Sorting the results? Give me a break. Don't do it unless you want invalid data or you are absolutely sure you know what you're doing. Summarize the information? Big joke. Is there value there? There is value in what needs to be done so you wouldn't use Excel to capture the information.

If a client can pay to have a good network in place they can pay the extra to have the applications to run on it. If they perceive that is isn't of value, move on.

FileMaker's not going there. Too much is left to some assumptions FileMaker can't take responsibility for. Besides, there must be a big business need for it to even be considered. That takes building a significant case.

Wishes are one thing, reality is another.

That said, the devil on my OTHER shoulder says it wouldn't be so bad if FMI allowed just that one feature for, say, $150. It would make it the fabled "thin" client much asked for by generation upon generation of FileMaker developers. Not everyone needs schema, layout or script editing. They just want to use the solution placed before them.

On the other hand, FMI might find it important to encourage casual users to play with the tools that are there anyway. They've always said that they view it as a tool to encourage workgroup collaboration. Us developers have a hard time wrapping our brain around the idea that FMI doesn't exist solely to feather OUR beds.

I'm going to have to leave it up to the wisdom of the FileMaker G.O.D.s on this one.

The thin client is called "web browser." It can only access what's been created and sitting around for someone to use. You can't do layouts, you can't do schema, you can't do script editing, etc. You just do thin stuff.

Now, how "thin" or "fat" did you want that client.

I know, here's an inexpensive yet networkable thing similar to FileMaker and does relational stuff, too -- Bento!

Bento is relational? Since when?