Thank you for your post.
I checked into this for you and it seems this is meant for clarification of the intended use of the extra connection. The extra connection is meant for testing purposes but not to be used in production.
I hope this answers your question!
I really hope FileMaker reconsider this and their other actions that make it difficult to recommend FileMaker 15 to my clients. It seems that rather than sell their product to more users FileMaker are intent on extracting more money from their current user base.
This removal of a connection not even being mentioned by FileMaker in any of their presentations is underhand and an attempt to bury more reasons for not upgrading to FMP15. All together this does not bode well for the future.
Contracting and licensing 6 production connections in FM13/14 and then being reduced to 5 with a maintenance update in FM15 does not seem right at all. I certainly think you should be able to keep your extra connection if you had a VLA prior to the release date of FM15.
Maybe how it should be including some sort of grandfathering:
“When you purchase FileMaker Server Software, you receive one concurrent connection. If your original volume license contract date is after (insert FM15 release date), that one concurrent connection access is to use for evaluation purposes and this concurrent connection cannot be used in a production environment. “
How bad do you need that one? If you really need it, it will cost you another 5 connections.
I get that this way: Often, small business-people with 5 employees are running a FileMaker Server and 5 clients at the office. The Boss goes out, hunting... and want's to connect to the server -> that's why one webd connection was cool
I see it in the same way as the demo versions of FileMaker Pro. You can have a look, see if it does what you want and if it does then you are going to need to buy a licence.
Yes but with FileMaker Pro you have the option to buy just one copy. If you have an iPad or want to use a browser you have to buy 5. This is a lot of money for existing clients who already have their copies of FileMaker Pro and just want the occasional use of say one iPad.
It is funny that FM in all their examples assume your requirement is a multiple of 5. If the customer wants to use just one WebDirect connection that is public facing they now need to pay three times the price for everybody. This is outrageous and the behaviour of a monopoly abusing existing customers who would need to redevelop in say Xxxx to move away.
I know its unlikely to be a popular opinion but I am not flaming. I really think, if anything, FileMaker is an absolute complete bargain. Five seats at £630 or 10 at at £1020 seems ridiculously cheap. The idea of buying licences through the Teams scheme seems perfect to me, it simplifies the model, gets smaller users onto server (rather than peer to peer) and is overall an easy to understand model.
FileMaker is far from a monopoly, there are loads of alternatives from 4D and Xojo through to coding your applications in C# or Swift. What I would say is try using an alternative and then say FileMaker is expensive. I will race anybody to deliver a cross platform solution integrated with a variety of other platforms. The money saved on licences will, as you have realised, not come even vaguely close to the extra time those languages need in order to deliver solutions.
There area couple of things going on here.
I'm not denying FileMaker is good value in a lot of situations. The issue is that the new licensing combined with the restrictions on shared hosting only work for a limited set of customer scenarios.
Crispin's point that customers who have been successfully using the single concurrent connection for "production" use with 14 now find they must buy 5 concurrent connections at the equivalent cost of FIFTEEN FileMaker Pro 15 licences to continue using a single WebDirect connection for collecting feedback from their customers.
Prohibiting the use of the single connection in productions seems rather harsh for existing customers.
FLT is great for internal teams with an in house server, but doesn't really work for small businesses who need WAN access to their databases, especially when combined with the additional costs caused by the demise of shared hosting.
Of my currently active development projects, 3/4 of them require Go access by staff (which would point to FLT) and/or need WebDirect access for their customers to occasionally input data or make requests - which seems to mandate using legacy licensing and the triple price concurrent connections.
I am surprised that the now recommended FLT licensing does not seem to cater for several common usage scenarios. This is causing a lot of the negative reaction as the consequence is an unexpected (and sometimes large) increase in licensing costs for a significant cohort of existing customers.
I remain hopeful that a way will be found to address these issues so we can get back focussing on how brilliant FileMaker is.
I agree that FM is almost certainly quicker to develop in. However with a customer already on 14 and using the connection that came with server (and the EULA for 14 makes it clear they can) it is a different matter and not something FM should have hidden away.
Also you just did a 'FileMaker' you did your calculation based on the convenient assumption that the requirement happens to be a multiple of 5. The price of £630 for one user is rather different. Also it will be 3 times that if any user is a member of the public so potentially £1890 for one public access point or much worse as you cannot mix FLT and connections so have to pay the 3 times price for ALL users. How about a system with 99 users in house and one WebDirect? That would not be a pretty number.
Frankly, I think that this change in the EULA was deceptive, and does not reflect well on the company. FileMaker has been very forthright on future restrictions, clearly defined the price increases, and has provided ample transition for these changes. Some customers may not agree with the direction, but FileMaker has laid the cards out on the table.
This stealth change in using the connection that comes with FileMaker server was not treated in the same open manner. If it was not for CrispinHodges diligent reading of the EULA, I would not have been aware of this change prior to making any purchasing decisions. My thanks to CrispinHodges. My disappointment in FileMaker's management.
In 13 and 14, the single concurrent connection was part of the purchase of server and could be used in production. I have a number of clients that need only the single concurrent connection. So now if we stick to the letter of the Eula when they upgrade FMS to 15, they now have to purchase 5 concurrent connections when they still only require 1.
I don't think this will sit well with them. If they just upgrade and continue to work as they have been will server deny the connection?