Next version will skip the peer-to-peer-networking, or what ? This is the opposite of what we need and what is fitting in modern times considering the price tag.
This version has already reduced the peer-to-peer concurrent user count down to 5 from 9 according to the help file.
I hope they are not trying to get rid of p2p.
FileMaker Pro Network Sharing supports the of files with up to 5 concurrent users (not including the host). FileMaker Go clients are included in the limit of 5 users. To support more users and web publishing technologies such as XML and , use FileMaker Server.
didn´t they increase the number of clients from 11 to 12 from 5 to 10 ? Now rollback, or what ?
I haven't seen a full set of pricing options yet and certainly the price of WebDirect will have a significant effect on initial takeup I would imagine.
This article in Apple Insider
states a server based concurrent user through WebDirect or FMGo license price of $5 / user / month - which does not appear an unreasonable sum for such an inclusive technology?
Logically the starting price for users of a professionally developed system access from FMGo or WebDirect should cost a bit less than the monthly per user price of FileMaker Pro? How does that look now in dollars in the USA?
If the cost were significantly less than the FM Pro price that would presumably encourage an expansion of the user base?
Does this make sense?
They smokin what Wallstreet & District of Criminals smokin!
Mega supply of Opium from the CIA/US MIL/Afganastan suppliers.
As it has always been overpriced and feature poor.
And remember this pricing also applies to FMGo 13 connections...
you only get VLA or renting prices for at least five clients, that doesn´t help the SOHO people.
I think most participants who have been to the last two Devcons have realized that the WebDirect was coming and it would have to be priced into the Server somehow. I was actually worried it would cost even more than it does. I was a little disapopinted the price points for the FM Pro clients went up and always want cheaper. But FileMaker also has to make the business plan work. While FileMaker clearly has a cost to it, you have to compare it to alternatives such as Microsoft SQL Server and maybe an Access front end or event a web front end. Without even getting into development time costs that FileMaker clearly wins on, the MS SQL Server is a pretty hefty price solution. But then again it is cheaper than an Oracle solution. Granted FileMaker does not do some things that those servers do and it is not as scalable, it also costs a whole lot less, and provides a better rapid application development tool. So you have to do some comparing and I think once making the comparisons, you will realize that FileMaker is fairly reasonably priced.
I have to admit I wince when I hear people using FileMaker Pro as a server with peer-to-peer technology. It kind of works and is ok for a test environment. I would never put a production environment in with it. It just isn't a server technology. And if you are comparing the current system of needing a server verses previously not needing one, I would argue that you should have had one before. As FileMaker moves more towards mobile and cloud solutions, I expect that the peer-to-peer solution in the client will probably go away in the future. Just a guess, but there are many problems going that route that do not lead to good data management.
I think Filemaker is trying to hedge their bets. I'm sure they are afraid of cannibalizing their Pro sales, which is their current cash cow. Also, it's always easier to lower prices than to raise them, so they may very will be testing the waters. If the new features grow market share like we saw with FM Go, they may eventually feel more ease in lowering the price point.
Lastly, I think they are trying to move to an annual licensing model. I think ultimately, we may see a Filemaker based hosting program of some sort. (Just conjecture based on the job notices I've seen FMI posting lately).
This is a BIG change for Filemaker. They are betting the company on this technology in many ways, so while I'm personally a little disappointed at the price point, I can understand their taking a conservative approach.
At a $200 per user price point, they are taking a 1/3 hit over the existing Pro pricing. I'm sure there will be some discounts for Developers and Partners. Webdirect is amazing, but it is V1. We need to help make it successful to insure that it does not become stale like IWP. Printing, full import/export support and some other missing features will be worked into future releases. But FMI has to have revenue to make that happen. As this is a new model, it's going to take some time for them to see where the price/volume ratio is stable and profitable.
Personally, I am just thrilled that this version is shipping.
The other big question will be.. what do those of us with maintenance get included with this upgrade? We had unlimited IWP before, do we get some initial number of Web connect licenses with our upgrades?
Sorry, I am not talking about any comparison to SQL Server, Oracle and stuff like that. I am talking about SOHO clients, 2, 3, 4, 5 people using a database, those former Bento customers. They can work for years with peer-to-peer-networking without ever having a problem. And think of how many SOHO customers there are, especially using Macs - most advertising companies are SOHO for example. They won´t change an existing FM installation with using IWP to this unaffordable WebDirect stuff ever.
where I can see the values of webdirect (concurrent connections.) ?
Actually, yes you are talking about comparing them, but you are leaving them out. You are asking for FileMaker to cheaper without any comparison to the alternatives. If youi want to be cheap, Get MySQL and PHP and spend an incredible amount of time in development. That is unreasonable too.
I work a number of SOHO clients and I tell them if they want to share FileMaker files, they need to do it on a server. If you can't justify the cost of a server, go with a hosting company. But make sure you user a server for any production solutions including for SOHOs!
Lee, I agree with you. Human nature is to always want something better for less money. It will always be that way.
But having had time to work with FM13, I'm thrilled with the possibilities. I run a good medical practice and FileMaker does a bang-up job for my practice management/EMR solution... better than anything out there I believe. As a business person as well as a developer, I balance the need to keep costs in hand with the 'you get what you pay for' counterside.
And my perspective is from someone who has been a user since version 1 also.
I completely undersatnd that FileMaker has to make a living in order to continue development. However, The change in cost of deploying mobile solutions is huge.
I have a client looking to deploy 100 iOS devices anf the cost of FM licencing has overnight increased bay a factor of at least 10 (assuming 50 concurrent connections will be sufficient)
Which ever way you look at it that's a huge increase. I guess I had expected at least a sliding scale as more licences were purchased.
Combine these prices with the costs of a second server powerful enough to host 50 web direct clients and my eyes start to water....
I love the new 13 features and the capabilities of Web Direct, but the new pricing will kill a number of FMP11 + IWP migrations dead.