when clicking on perceptual licencies, the following dialog appears
here is a screenshot from a poll (macgadget.de, aug 20 2018
ONLY 4% are for annual licencing, 81% prefer to buy software. It seems to local preferences..
Annual is a popular choice with most newer companies. Lower cost of entry. It is also easier to justify certain tax deductions when the cast is clearly an annual subscription.
There should be a bigger warning that perpetual licenses do not get access to FM Cloud even though the store page says you access to the entire “platform”. Had a client who was excited to get a single install on FMC with a perpetual license and figured out later that was not possible.
Some industries/companies require perpetual licenses for various reasons. Institutions that depend heavily on outside funding. If funding suddenly drops for some reason and they need to cut costs, they need the security of knowing their FM software will continue to function.
This poll for me reflects the cultural diversity with different markets. Without any doubt, rent a sw / pay a annual fee is far less popular in Europe ('specially for Germany and Switzerland).
FMI using same language, same marketing strategy, same treatments for all different kinds of markets isn't a wise strategy. European customers tend to call this ignorance.
There's a huge difference in the States where the average life of a new start-up is relatively short so everything - staff, furniture, offices, software are rented/leased..
It makes the monthly outgoings a fixed amount so then you can balance that against required income..
I agree, in UK we are still bitten by the effects of some 'naughty bankers' so people are much more prepared to purchase what they can afford, but only when and if,
It is a bit unsettling. One has to assume any reasonably intelligent person has evaluated the options and has specifically chosen the perpetual license knowing the costs are more than annual.
when you stop paying maintenance you still have the licence keys so can still access your files...
keep your server 16 keys and you are good to go for a few years...
It IS a cultural thing, and over about 7 years the pendulum swings the other way.
Sell what the customer wants, then they are more likely to come back...
Yes! If one buys and later on gets retired (his/her company), there is still a licence available that can be used for whatever reason.
I remember a small design company (one person) that was running into problems with the adobe licencies - only pdf were available
Or that small company that was having finacial problems, could not pay for the licence but needed that desperately at that time..
In our environment, customers want to buy, that reflects the results of that poll
Maybe those situations might be discussed...
Just some cents from me:
There is a big difference between a monthly subscription model, as with a mobile phone contract / the rent for my apartment and an annual subscription model! (Adobe is offering a monthly subscription, FMI uses annual subscription …)
As long as I (or my customer) have the choice with FileMaker Licenses between buying (= perpetual) and annual subscription), I am OK.
Personally I tend to buy the product when using software.
bigtom wrote: It is a bit unsettling. One has to assume any reasonably intelligent person has evaluated the options and has specifically chosen the perpetual license knowing the costs are more than annual.
there are more parameters to the equation: my clients prefer mostly to buy one time and stick with that purchased version for years. they don't want to update - they are happy when it works and any update might have unforeseen costs if things break. you might get surprised how expensive it is to dive into the latest and greatest whenever advertised...
Regarding these polls on MacGadget.de - you can find similar ones and results on mactechnews.de - I have the impression that there is a difference between these polls/results and the real market. There is a large silent majority.
We started offering cloud based services (in the German language market) last year and just because of the hosting you can´t "sell" this anymore - there is only rental. But to our own surprise people don´t have problems with that. Security issues are much more what they are interested in.
For most things I am against the subscription model and I prefer to buy my software. With FileMaker, however, for those who always want to be on the latest version - the annual licensing is a good deal.
With the the current pricing scheme of triple the annual licensing, you are guaranteed that the 3rd year you will already be on an unsupported version.
Originally I was disappointed with the new licensing model. When you take into account that FileMaker Pro Advanced is included with every seat, and licensing is based on users instead of connections (which is a headache if users need to make multiple connections), I’m actually happy with the licensing model. The only aspect of the current model I do not like is the metering of the Data API which seems unnecessary, escepecially since the same thing (pumping data out of the FileMaker database you paid for) can be achieved with an xDBC connection and any server side web api.
I personally will go for the renting model since I got a site licence for my company and as a developer, I need to go for the latest versions. Until now, I payed yearly the maintenance - what is quite similar to a rent (there are still some unanswered questions (ie how to handle the use of older versions because of maintaing older customer solutions, migrating, etc), but I gave up asking..)
On the other hand, companies that are ISO certified (900x/2700x/etc) need to test a new version, decide to go or not, depending on several things.
12 month are passing by on the fly - and the procedure for testing and installing is quite complex, expensive. Further on, FileMaker is not the only software a company has to maintain - and FileMaker is not the most important one (architects need a CAD/GIS/Renderer/etc. for their living, not FileMaker...)
FileMaker 16 had in it's early state (until 16.04) some issues that could result in currupt files, lead to interruption of daily processes - and from the point of the ISO, the FM developer is representive for those issues - not FileMaker (because the developer decides to go or not). Means, one will not go for a new version in an early state. Beside of the fact that often a new version has new options, methods - that have to be built in before users can take advantage..
As a developer, annual now gives you one FM Cloud install for testing. That is a real benefit over perpetual.
If you have a long term plan for FM in your organization without use of FM Cloud, perpetual and maintenance is the lowest cost for n the long term. Writing off perpetual licenses gets more complicated but still possible.
My maintenance is much less than the annual cost is.
FM Cloud is a no-go here for some customers/organisations
- outside of the country
- too much dependencies (ISP, etc)
- can't be trusted (in terms of GoodPriv@cy, ISO 27001, etc)
(Costs: I know nothing about the costs for a renting model, a FMI representive contacted me, but could not say how much I have to pay)
Retrieving data ...