when clients hear that they have to get a server on top of the development cost and FM costs, just to run their solution, lets just say, I have lost a number of deals because of all the extra costs.
While I fully support the drive to get an on-premise version of Linux; the argument above comes up from time to time on these forums.
Developing on the FM platform means that the cost of the platform needs to be taken into account.
iMHO, there are no 'extra' costs; there are just costs. Delivering a solution to the client is more than just the cost of development. The licensing and deployment costs are well-known ahead of time and should not come as a surprise at all. Sometimes presenting the total cost up front without breaking it down too much gives the potential client a clearer idea instead of being made to feel like this is 'death by a 1000 cuts'. It can be a subtle but important psychological difference for your sales pitch: presenting one cost is preferable than presenting a slew of items each priced individually. The latter causes uncertainty and requires the client to keep track of them all to calculate their total cost. Nobody likes uncertainty.
What you say is true, and we do quote with all the costs involved. The reason I am having a rant this morning is because I have a client on a small site (less than 10 users) and they have never had a server. They currently run a Windows 8.1 PC as their server and in the past FMS could run on that but when I went to upgrade them to FM15 I found out that it wont install on a PC, it has to be a server.
I know the client should take into account the cost of the server, but often they dont and then when they see it on the quote and even after we have told them about it, they questioning it. Then I have to explain to a non-tech person why they need a server.
I see the FM Server for Linux has been delivered so i could not vote up that one, and the other 2 I had already voted up