1 2 Previous Next 25 Replies Latest reply on Jul 8, 2017 2:23 PM by RubenVanDenBoogaard

    Shared hosting not allowed, seriously?

    pietergorisio

      Hi fellow FM'er,

       

       

      I want to start a discussion here about the unclarity in the license options for Filemaker in my humble opinion.

      So I'll first describe the case of what I wanted to do.

       

      I made a FM solution for just one friend because he was in urgent need for an invoicing solution that could easily manage a lot of products and wasn't locked in to an online solution for the rest of his life.

      This went all fine, but soon the questions kept coming from friends of him to make them the same solution with some adaptations to it.

       

      So my thinking was. Let's rent a dedicated server. Buy an annual server 16 subscription and host all those solutions on that server.

      Every one with their own login so they can't see each others solution. I would make sure everyone had his own Filemaker Pro license on either their Mac or their PC. Multiplatform and easy deployment and rapid prototyping I thought were the key features of the Filemaker platform?

       

      I discussed this several times with the Filemaker support over the phone and never did anyone mentioned the following statement coming from Filemaker sales Belgium/Netherlands.

       

      "It's not allowed to host multiple client solutions on one server due to security risks. What you can do is purchase a server license per client".

      I mean? Are you serious?

       

      Do they really think every blue collar worker is fed up with the BS of having to buy their own dedicated server, annual server license and a filemaker pro license? What's the cost of that for a small company? And where is the chance for me to make any profit.

      I'm a huge Apple lover with many many Mac hardware over the last 12 years. Before anyone even knew what Mac was about here in Belgium.

      But this statement smells like your typical money hungry Apple BS.

       

      This is just my opinion but if this is really the case. That every customer of mine needs a server license on its own. Well, it's a big farewell to Filemaker for me then. It's an awesome platform, but the license options are waaaaaay to expensive in my humble opinion. How can any small company live with IT costs this high. And please forgive me if I miss anything here, and do correct me if I'm wrong.

       

      I'm open to take the heat if this is a big misconception of mine.

       

       

      Your opinion is much appreciated.

      Regards,

      Pieter

        • 1. Re: Shared hosting not allowed, seriously?
          CarlSchwarz

          pietergorisio wrote:

           

          Hi fellow FM'er,

           

           

           

          So my thinking was. Let's rent a dedicated server. Buy an annual server 16 subscription and host all those solutions on that server.

           

           

          That would be what SBA licensing is for.  You can do it with some caveats.  You must team up with a FileMaker Business Alliance member and also have your solution approved by FileMaker.

           

          pietergorisio wrote:

           

           

          "It's not allowed to host multiple client solutions on one server due to security risks. What you can do is purchase a server license per client".

          I mean? Are you serious?

           

          Do they really think every blue collar worker is fed up with the BS of having to buy their own dedicated server, annual server license and a filemaker pro license? What's the cost of that for a small company? And where is the chance for me to make any profit.

           

           

          This is just my opinion but if this is really the case. That every customer of mine needs a server license on its own.

          Where would you go?

          Do note that "Dedicated server" in FileMaker terminology means one server for one client, it does not exclude using a VPS for hosting.  VPS hosting can be had for less price than a 5 user FileMaker Server license.

          1 of 1 people found this helpful
          • 2. Re: Shared hosting not allowed, seriously?
            Johan Hedman

            I think all this problem with shared FMS comes from US where way to many people try to make money out ot suing other. In this case, if another FM solution where hosted on same FMS and that made the whole FMS to crash that would interfere with other FM solutions for other clients. Because of this FMI had to make into dedicated server for FMS

            • 3. Re: Shared hosting not allowed, seriously?
              monkeybreadsoftware

              Maybe your clients should get a FLT license and get a cloud server via AWS?

              Than they have no need to buy FMP any more and just install it everywhere and use them as needed.

              • 4. Re: Shared hosting not allowed, seriously?
                wimdecorte

                pietergorisio wrote:

                 

                How can any small company live with IT costs this high.

                 

                Simply: because it provides more value than it costs.  And the cost is the total of the licensing, the hardware and the development and the upkeep.

                 

                Either the value is there or it isn't.  The size of the company doesn't really matter; it's what business problem the solution solves.

                 

                That licensing restriction has been in effect since FM15 was released so it should be part of the cost/value evaluation from the get-go.  I personally wouldn't ditch any platform because its cost is higher than the value for one scenario.

                • 5. Re: Shared hosting not allowed, seriously?
                  bigtom

                  Your best option is SaaS as it sounds like these people will never want to interact with the databases you built anyway.

                   

                  You can use only one server in this case if your clients do not have access to the server and do not own the files. They simply pay you for access monthly or yearly or every 5 years or whatever to have access to your database as a rented service. The subscribers do not own the database file. You would need connections for all users or FMP licenses for all users. You could bundle it all into one file as well.

                   

                  Commercial hosting is where customers have full access to the file for editing and managing.

                  2 of 2 people found this helpful
                  • 6. Re: Shared hosting not allowed, seriously?
                    bigtom
                    1 of 1 people found this helpful
                    • 7. Re: Shared hosting not allowed, seriously?
                      fmpdude

                      We live in a world of free apps, free application servers like Tomcat, free databases like MySQL and MariaDB, etc, inexpensive Linux servers, AWS, etc., which makes the value proposition for FMS much harder in my view - especially after the huge changes staring in version 13.

                       

                      Many clients are on shoe-string budgets and if "value" ($$$) means they can't pay their employees, they won't choose FMS.

                       

                      Paying $25,000 for 100 users in FMS is simply ridiculous.

                       

                      So, I have 50 databases with two concurrent users in each database on that FMS, I'm already maxed out? Maybe I'm missing something here, too. As I recall, Oracle one CPU license is about $17K with cheaper versions if you don't want all the bells and whistles. Sure, you can pay more, too.

                       

                      I routinely have 300 to 500 concurrent users using my web services.

                      1. Server: $80/year. You'll always need a server.
                      2. Language:  free (though I do pay a small yearly IDE subscription)
                      3. App server: free (Tomcat)
                      4. New user fee: $0.0
                      5. High scalability

                       

                      I know this isn't the same as FMP and isn't an apples-to-apples comparison. But for me, the bottom line, is that, unless you have Enterprise or at least mid-tier clients who are quasi-technical and know what's going on, people expect to pay little nowadays making, for me, the FileMaker sales pitch go nowhere with folks I've talked to at networking meetings an the like.  Regardless of emphasizing value and "solutions", It ALWAYS gets down to how much does that little doggie in the window cost? What technology are you using? etc.

                       

                      If FMI would abandon the concurrent licensing, IMHO, nightmare and just charge something like $2,500 for unlimited connections (or similar to version 12 pricing), I would buy it.

                       

                      There are lots of folks here who are successful marketing FMS and have actual clients so I envy them.

                      1 of 1 people found this helpful
                      • 8. Re: Shared hosting not allowed, seriously?
                        bigtom

                        If a company has to choose between paying employees and affording FM, they have bigger issues.

                         

                        Not all businesses are successful. Anyone is allowed to start a business and see how it goes.

                         

                        Wise companies never question the costs. The see a 10x or 20x return in saved time and resources and that is an easy decision. Granted there are those that say "How can I get 50x?", but that is not the majority.

                         

                        Marketing properly is a thing. Find the clients that have money and understand value.

                         

                        If OP can get this all into one solution It could run as Solution Bundle Hosting and work exactly how he wants it to.

                        • 9. Re: Shared hosting not allowed, seriously?
                          pietergorisio

                          So if I understand this well:

                           

                          Solution Bundle Hosting is where a hosting provider has developed and manages a single solution, and is offering that same solution to multiple customers. The hosting provider must be both the solution administrator and the server administrator. Customers cannot access the Operating System (OS) or the FileMaker Admin Console and cannot modify the solution or install any plug-ins. The hosting company is responsible for adequate security measures and user credential management.

                           

                          If I turn the separate solutions per client (situation now) into one big single solution that hosts all the data (of all clients) into that one solution and only shows relevant information to the appropriate client this single server license is allowed?

                           

                          It it a recommended scenario though? I mean, one misstep in your security and clients see each others data or do I see that wrong?

                          • 10. Re: Shared hosting not allowed, seriously?
                            pietergorisio

                            We also have to keep in mind though that not all companies are big enterprises and might still need a database solution that is accessible by them (on location) but also by the admin (off site location).

                            • 11. Re: Shared hosting not allowed, seriously?
                              wimdecorte

                              fmpdude wrote:

                               

                               

                              Paying $25,000 for 100 users in FMS is simply ridiculous.

                               

                              Not objectively, no.  Again: value.  Besides, if you have 100 licenses to buy, talk to a FM sales rep; don't pay retail.

                               

                               

                               

                              fmpdude wrote:

                               

                               

                              So, I have 50 databases with two concurrent users in each database on that FMS, I'm already maxed out?

                               

                              The # of databases is irrelevant for your licensing.  If you have 100 licenses you can have 100 concurrent users.

                               

                               

                              fmpdude wrote:

                               

                              Regardless of emphasizing value and "solutions", It ALWAYS gets down to how much does that little doggie in the window cost?

                               

                              Yes, but in the sense of "how much does it cost for what I get".  If you can deliver the same value at a lower cost you should absolutely go for it.  There is no question about that.  We're not here just to sell FM licenses; we're here to solve business problems and solve them for a cost less than the cost of the problem.

                              • 12. Re: Shared hosting not allowed, seriously?
                                amysink

                                Speak with your wallet. We've already started moving our solutions to Amazon Aurora/MySQL where they cost much less and can scale. FileMaker isn't for the rest of us anymore.

                                • 13. Re: Shared hosting not allowed, seriously?
                                  wimdecorte

                                  amysink wrote:

                                   

                                  Speak with your wallet.

                                   

                                  Yes.  Always and everywhere.

                                   

                                   

                                  amysink wrote:

                                   

                                  FileMaker isn't for the rest of us anymore.

                                   

                                  Kindly don't.  This is a forum to help people solve FM problems.  These kinds of statements are just generic bashing.

                                  You can't possibly speak for everyone or 'the rest of us' so it really just diminishes whatever point that you want to make.

                                   

                                  Why don't you just post objectively why the decision was made in your scenario, put some numbers next to it?  That way it can help people make sound decisions, not just feel possibly uneasy because the tone of the forum is negative without substantiation.

                                  3 of 4 people found this helpful
                                  • 14. Re: Shared hosting not allowed, seriously?
                                    amysink

                                    I think the original poster summed up the extra FileMaker costs quite well. FileMaker Shared hosting was just fine for years and now it's not and for no reason.

                                    1 2 Previous Next