You dont have to pay for your own FileMaker Server license. You can always find a partner to host for your. Find a local business partner that know FileMaker (are certified and FileMaker Platinum Partner)
Thanks for the response Johan. I thought that option was not allowed with FMS15. I thought I had to host myself and have my own license? Does this not apply to FBA? http://www.filemaker.com/company/legal/docs/hosting_faq.pdf
Yes, that is true, but you still don't have to be the host. Someone else can do that for you with expert knowledge about FileMaker Server
I am ok with hosting. It is the user and pricing model I am struggling with. I guess I should ring FM and get it straight.
Filemaker for teams includes the server and a minimum of 5 connexions to this server, spread on all platforms: you can one Pro, 1 Go, and 3 WebDirect simultaneously for example. And this is for $888/year. The price increases the more user you need. See here: FileMaker Store: FileMaker Licensing for Teams
If you need a specific number of connections, say 3 on a computer, 2 on GO and 2 on WebDirect, then you can buy individual licenses. In this case, you need to separately buy a server license with 5 concurrent connexions to get access to WebDirect and GO, plus 3 FM Pro licenses for your computers.
Hope this makes sense!
As a one man band I actually have a sad feeling FileMaker is not for the micro business
I am one-man-band myself and FileMaker works just fine for me. In the past I worked in the companies with up to 10 developers and clients with hundreds of users. Works for them as well.
FileMaker is just what you make of it. If it does not work for you and you know something what works better, just use what you found. I can add image editing to FIleMaker (done that for a client in the past), but if I need an image edited, I will open Photoshop.
You will also find a lot of developers here who work on their own or in the companies with less then 5 developers. They've built their business around FileMaker.
even in companies (larger than 5), there may only be 1-2 FM developers (and/or with 1 contract developer).
many one-dev-bands here and out there!!
Trashed the brain bleed statements
So do you guys share fm project management apps with clients and have infrequent account users . Do people use filemaker to work with external parties? Anyway thanks for the responses. It was not a very good initial question
It may depend upon the clients and the developers. Some of us "share" development with client and some devs lock-down to be only "admin" and some we are only consultants/trainers with no access other than via screen share or onsite.
there are many variations on "collaboration"
It's unclear whether you charge for use of your solution, part of it, or not at all; however most technologies have some sort of cost you have to deal with. While it's true that you're required to have FileMaker licensing for the number of concurrent connections on FMS, we've always found the reduced labor expenses in development far outweigh long-term licensing costs.
We sometimes build traditional sites that will push/pull data from FileMaker. That way internally, you have a powerful FileMaker solution, yet you can offer essentially a free mechanism for collaboration to outside parties without a FileMaker license.
We've had amazing success with FileMaker and I hope you do too.
1 of 1 people found this helpful
I think it is a little early to establish how FileMaker will pan out for both large and small organisations. We're only months in to the new licensing scheme and many small organisations who host their systems via a cloud based server remain on v14 and can thereby continue to share the cost of the server with other companies. Something no longer available with v15.
However, there is no need for the high server configurations for a dedicated virtual machine, therefore this cost can be quite small. We have successful instances running with 2Gb RAM for small workgroups.
The hardest hit are those using webdirect for generic web access, where concurrency has become very expensive (3 times that of a standard license) and for those with occasional users.
Our early experience has been that, providing clear costs are spelt out early on as part of an enquiry, new clients haven't balked at these, whereas existing clients have been less happy.
In terms of collaboration with other developers, assuming they have their own copy of FMPA, then there aren't any FMS licensing issues.
We do expect to lose a few very small clients when we finally switch off the last v14 server, but at that point there may be other alternatives available to them.