1 2 3 4 Previous Next 58 Replies Latest reply on Jun 2, 2017 3:56 AM by bigtom

    FM 16 > Runtime alternative?

    tays01s

      I have a Runtime, that is used in the health service. This means that FM has to meet certain criteria:

      1. healthcare centres are unlikely to permit transmission of data outside the centre.

      2. Users won't buy FM.

      3. Most centres won't buy FM Server.

      4. Users need to create/ edit/ save new records.

      An untested thought is a solution whereby the user keeps all the ID info and the calculations are off-site, but healthcare is unlikely to permit even this.

       

      A) Any FM16 possibilities or is FM effectively leaving this niche?

      b) How long are Runtime's likely to be usable (I currently use FMA 14 with 32- and 64-bit RTs) with changing software/ OS's?

        • 1. Re: FM 16 > Runtime alternative?
          TomHays

          tays01s wrote:

           

          A) Any FM16 possibilities or is FM effectively leaving this niche?

           

           

          FM16 Pro Advanced supports runtimes.  Well, "supports" may be too strong a statement.  FM16 still has runtimes.

           

          Your question is appropriate for later versions of FileMaker Pro Advanced though since runtimes are deprecated.

           

          As far as leaving the niche, deprecated status indicates that the feature may be removed in a future release.  Sometimes for software developers deprecated status can mean that a replacement technology is being developed or is already available.

           

          If you are dependent on runtimes for your distribution model, I would recommend that you gear up for using FileMaker 16 Pro Advanced for an indefinite amount of time.  While you and many of the rest of us who benefit from using runtimes can hope that FileMaker will provide a replacement technology, it would be prudent to research other non-FileMaker options to prepare for the time when operating systems change enough that FileMaker 16 runtime no longer runs.

           

          -Tom

          1 of 1 people found this helpful
          • 2. Re: FM 16 > Runtime alternative?
            Markus Schneider

            Maybe it's worth speaking with a FMI representant about FBA membership and SBA licencies (solution bundles). Depending on the number of installations, You could create a bundle for Your users containing Your solution - together with a FileMaker Pro.

             

            FileMaker will not be free - but maybe in a price-range where deals with customers are in sight...

             

            Besides of that, we are all hoping that a new 'runtime' appears in the future - does not need to be free IMHO, but a really thin client for some bucks

            2 of 2 people found this helpful
            • 3. Re: FM 16 > Runtime alternative?
              wimdecorte

              tays01s wrote:

               

              2. Users won't buy FM.

              3. Most centres won't buy FM Server.

               

              The questions I would concentrate on would be these.  Why not?  Is the overall cost of the solution too high for them in relation to the value they're getting?

               

              Using Server brings a lot to the table that you don't get with runtime, especially in the area of security and data integrity, both of which are very important to this sector.

              1 of 1 people found this helpful
              • 4. Re: FM 16 > Runtime alternative?
                Benjamin Fehr

                Is the overall cost of the solution too high for them in relation to the value they're getting?

                No.

                It's just that a FMServer-License AND Server-Hardware costs much more than they can afford.

                NHS doesn't mean to deal with wealthy Hospitals at all. Most of my customers make less than a 70k annual revenues (NOT Net Profit!).

                • 5. Re: FM 16 > Runtime alternative?
                  tays01s

                  Thanks for responses:

                  Tom: So FMA 16 can create RTs just as FMA 14? Minus 32-bit support of course? Any suggestions to replace FM? I'd not want to be 'dumped' by a 2nd corporate decision, but I'd prefer not to have to actually learn computer code.

                   

                  Marcus and Wimdecorte and Benjamin: The RT is v. cheap and offers functionality to the user that nothing else does. However, it's neither established nor in a market used to paying. So there's no way they'd buy FM even as a bundle. IF it was wonderfully successful, I agree, a server-based solution would then be great.

                   

                  Personally, I'd not mind a minimal cost per license RT if it meant FM put more effort into making it flexible. But they have been pretty remiss in giving us a reassuring road-map........which I suppose may mean there's no reassurance to be had?!!

                  • 6. Re: FM 16 > Runtime alternative?
                    schamblee

                    Some of the new features in 16 are not available in runtime.   It appears that FMI is not putting any effort into the runtime.  

                    • 7. Re: FM 16 > Runtime alternative?
                      tays01s

                      1. Is there a link to an RT feature list in FM 16?

                      2. So upgrading to FM 16 might be more to keep RTs compatible with OS's for longer, not for extended feature?

                      • 8. Re: FM 16 > Runtime alternative?
                        wimdecorte

                        tays01s wrote:

                         

                        nor in a market used to paying.

                         

                        That's be a concern, no?

                         

                        Work backwards from there then to build your business?

                        What *can* the market pay?  What is acceptable?  Based on that see what the tools cost (software licensing / your development learning curve,...) and figure out how many you'd have to sell to make an acceptable living for yourself.

                         

                        Tools come in two different categories, with at either end of the spectrum: the propriatery ones like FM that do a lot of the work for you: low learning curve, higher end of the licensing, good support.  The free ones / open source ones: no licensing cost but higher learning curve, sketchy support.

                         

                        Or alternatively: expand the market by proving value that they don't see yet, making it an easy choice for them to invest.  Not everything has to be cost.

                        • 9. Re: FM 16 > Runtime alternative?
                          TomHays

                          tays01s wrote:

                           

                          1. Is there a link to an RT feature list in FM 16?

                          2. So upgrading to FM 16 might be more to keep RTs compatible with OS's for longer, not for extended feature?

                           

                          1. Differences between runtime and FileMaker Pro
                          2. Yes, that's my take on it.  FM16 for runtime is to keep compatible with newer OS's, but there is also the benefit of using the new SDI on Windows platform (i.e. no more having all of the FileMaker windows contained within a single parent application window).

                           

                          -Tom

                          • 10. Re: FM 16 > Runtime alternative?
                            planteg

                            Let say that RT is removed from FMPA in V 18 (no I don't have any insight), on Windows you will be able to use RT made on 18 for a while because Windows is very tolerant about running old versions of a software. But on Mac OS, good luck . . .

                             

                            Since the removal of RT hurts some developers (a lot of them ?), wouldn't it be a good idea to create a group of these developers that would talk to FMI in the name of all of them (lobbying about the absence of RT and and a replacement) ?

                             

                            With Internet, it's so easy to have people from all over the place to discuss about that and have someone to represent them and talk to FMI. Having one person to establish a link with FMI is easier than having a bunch of people trying to make their point of view.

                            • 11. Re: FM 16 > Runtime alternative?
                              CarlSchwarz

                              tays01s wrote:

                               

                              I have a Runtime, that is used in the health service. This means that FM has to meet certain criteria:

                              2. Users won't buy FM.

                               

                              They are already buying and installing an application "the runtime" so why wouldn't they buy and install FM? It seems parallel. I suggest contacting FileMaker about the SBA agreement.

                               

                              tays01s wrote:

                               

                              1. healthcare centres are unlikely to permit transmission of data outside the centre.

                               

                               

                              FileMaker server on a remote site can be compliant with NHS health record standards when set up right.  Given that everything is going on line perhaps this perspective is changing for your clients?  Would the benefit of iPad / iPhone access, Managed backups, access anywhere, Zero IT maintenance (installation, moving files), etc. be on their mind already perhaps?

                               

                              tays01s wrote:

                               

                              b) How long are Runtime's likely to be usable (I currently use FMA 14 with 32- and 64-bit RTs) with changing software/ OS's?

                              As long as your users are still using a supported version of Windows / OSX.  Don't some hospitals still use Windows XP??

                              • 12. Re: FM 16 > Runtime alternative?
                                bigtom

                                They key here would be to see what they are willing to pay as wimdecorte suggested. I would also convert all to SaaS. If you do that you will find that the costs for the end users is much better and everyone gets the benefit of FMS.

                                • 13. Re: FM 16 > Runtime alternative?
                                  tays01s

                                  Cost & FM: I can't imagine people buying at >£10 therefore FM on top is likely to put them off completely.

                                   

                                  SaaS? Is this a server version?

                                  • 14. Re: FM 16 > Runtime alternative?
                                    CarlSchwarz

                                     

                                    Cost & FM: I can't imagine people buying at >£10.

                                     

                                    Sorry if I'm barking up the wrong business model but that's 2 McDonalds meals, or one meal for a couple. How many movies from iTunes is that?

                                    Let's say it takes 1 day to make the app, one day to build a website and do marketing, one day to package your runtimes for OSX and Windows and test deployment, that's over 150 sales to recoup development costs.

                                     

                                    Once again apologies if I'm far off target and please don't be offended, I just think that if what you are selling is helpful people will gladly pay more.

                                    1 2 3 4 Previous Next