Filemaker pro advanced 13 full mega free

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
I would not http://replace.me/1388.txt hundreds of dollars getting each new version other wise. Any combination of those and you’ve got advanceed issues. Just thoughts to consider In some ways only!
 
 

FileMaker Pro 18 Advanced download | macOS

 
I’ve invested filemaker pro advanced 13 full mega free and money growing my relationship with FMI and it has paid off by far. In the tech space, it is tiny. This last year we rolled out адрес страницы solution for нажмите для продолжения non-profit that distributes goods to homeless shelters. I have made the mistake and it was a mistake of filemakdr my feelings посмотреть еще the better of me and pretty much writing entire page rants in the past I know some of you in here had the pleasure of reading one of those around 12ets time. I have pulled little genies out the bottle using HTML into web viewers for the WebDirect and I would be a very адрес advocate if FMI provides a better alternative to add your custom code this way going forward rather than using Plugins the current way.

 

Apple News, Reviews and Information | Engadget.One moment, please

 

Tags business. Comments 4. Thiago 27 August Do you have a FileMaker Server 17?? I wanna it very much!! I am using Filemaker since it came to the market It enables users to import data from a spreadsheet or using a built-in Starter app to manage contacts, inventory, meetings, and more. FileMaker Pro Advanced 18 for Mac OS X includes a set of advanced tools to help users design and develop custom apps faster and easier.

For business purpose, it allows users to share the whole databases over a network with up to nine other users. To sum it up, FileMaker Pro Advanced is a must-have tool for creating custom apps that work seamlessly. Your email address will not be published. Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment. Previous Motion 5. Next Adobe Audition v Leave a Reply Your email address will not be published.

We use cookies on our website to give you the most relevant experience by remembering your preferences and repeat visits. However, you may visit “Cookie Settings” to provide a controlled consent. I have only been using FM for four years, but I can see they are no fools. I suspect there will be a new and not free vehicle for small app distribution and I am not surprised that there is no mention of it in the general press. Perhaps those in the Alliance know something, but that’s a closed shop and for good reason.

I want real RTS and I’m more than happy to pay for it FileMaker Inc. Apple bought Claris Corporation, where the FileMaker product was one of many products, in mid-end of the ’90’s. That is how FileMaker Inc. I don’t think Apple has put in a single penny to FileMaker Inc. It is more the other way around. Yes, but in a very limited extend. But I definitely like the idea of being able to use runtimes for several purposes.

Just happend that we have been busy with may other things. I have never said that I do not understand that such a statement is worrying for companies, that have this option as a key to their business model. In my first post I actually came with a couple of suggestions to possibly alternatives. I even wrote Dominique to pay attention to this thread, as I think some companies will have some real concerns and needs to plan for their future, if they rely their business on runtimes.

I also gave a couple of ideas to him as well. However, talk nice and be constructive if you want to move forward and try to make things happen. Just the same with your wife I was told that by a senior FM employee, and I can’t see how they can make a dollar without app royalties. However, you and I will never see the FM specific balance sheets. But to get some more customers, small ‘apps’ are needed – runtimes among others. If somebody has a small banking tool that shows everytime when quitting the FMI logo, he or she will know FileMaker..

I had to laugh. Since you posted several times after this one. Thank you for the giggle. Other ‘alternatives’ mentioned also included other products. Take some time to learn some of the other products. Try replicating one of your simplest files in, lets say, Xojo. Free to develop and test. Come back and talk about FileMaker after you have completed a compiled app that replicates all of the functionality of one of your simpler solutions.

This is intended just a moment of perspective, its not intended to be aggressive. I just want you to stop and consider what options you are looking at. My guess is that it will take you 6 months to a year to redevelop your app.

If you finish it and get all the bugs out, you will have a great alternative to create compiled apps. If you don’t, you will have a whole new appreciation for FileMaker. As I said, I was told by someone that should know. It may have been nonsense, but I took it at face value I have no intention of trying to defend hearsay, so, for that sake of this thread I will accept yours and Claus’s views of File Maker’s profitability. But I don’t really care if Apple propped up FM or not.

That’s history and means nothing in the current context. That’s not the point I was trying to get across. What I wanted to stress is that royalty free does not work, unless File Maker will and should charge where ever they can. Remember Clipper, Dbase, Superbase, Access? All free or minimal RTS. I will not purchase the new Filemaker if the runtime option is removed.

I am a developer of simple cheap solutions and would not make a living, if the end user had to purchase Filemaker as well as the solution.

Sorry – I probably wasn’t very clear. There are clearly many alternatives beyond FileMaker, albeit relatively impractical. What wouldn’t be feasible would be to have one FileMaker solution for networked solutions etc. Remember that ‘deprecated’ does not equate to ‘removed’. It’s just an alert that it may be removed in future versions. We do not know the future, but it’s good that we can discuss options here now before runtime is no longer available.

Josh, as Xojo developer, I think your assessment is accurate. Xojo is amazing, but you do have to do more work to get what you get in FileMaker. It’s an investment though. Once you go through all that, you can release your apps without any never ending lease payments to FileMaker. Over the years, I’ve built up a very strong library of FileMaker ‘stuff’ that I can reuse over and over to make our development faster like modules, FMClips, FMSnippets, custom functions, and such.

I’m doing the same in Xojo. I’m creating those modules and tools that I can reuse. It’s a big investment, but in the end I’ll have code that I can reuse over and over and sell solutions to folks without the burden of having to pay FileMaker every time a client buys my app.

You are talking about compiled apps. As opposed to custom development. I would guess that custom development isn’t a reality in Xojo, correct? Even if your needs are maybe different of some of us, you were really and always open mind. The Community is fortunate to having you as a fellow member. Even it is not so visible, i try contribute as well as i can. Am not in the secret of FMI plans and do not personally know Dominique. However, my best wish is for the end of the free Runtime can be simultaneous of a brand new FileMaker AppBuilder that give us opportunity to create first class apps, simply using our FileMaker skill, and also remunerate FileMaker for each seat we deploy, as it always should be.

That’s precisely the case you need to make to FMI. What intex fails to see is that there is difference between stating some arguments and making your case. If you have numbers to back your claim that runtimes should be kept around, then sit down with FMI and present your case.

Those numbers are private to you and your business so they do not belong in this public forum. Like any other feature you can only lobby effectively if you back it up by numbers. Ultimately FMI is going to decide whether it is worth their money to keep engineers working on runtimes.

Intex of course will chime in and say: “I don’t want to lobby, I’m a customer and I deserve to be heard”. To that I will answer: you are getting heard, but you are not making your case. I sincerely thank you to give all this attention to my humble case. Following yours and Carl’s advice, i will write a letter since i think actually dont’ have access to the appropriate people at FMI maybe, why not, directly to Dominique, and expose my case, the numbers, and suggesting what a royalty system could be profitable to all of us.

However, as you know, a given number cannot be seen the same by a company as Soliant or FileMaker, than my self-made 3 persons company. But yes, definitely, i will try this way and we will see. The most important is to try isn’t it? My suggestion is that you all formulate your business case in a good logical letter and send them to Dominique and your sales representatives. The folks at FMI do listen, but as a division of Apple and a public company, I would expect not to hear anything until maybe Devcon.

My experience is that they simply will not and can not react to such things in a knee-jerk reaction. I may have posted on this thread previously but shortly after decided that the best route would be to actually speak with somebody at FileMaker who knows what we do, how we do it and the relevant numbers to voice my concerns in a constructive manner.

I have made the mistake and it was a mistake of letting my feelings get the better of me and pretty much writing entire page rants in the past I know some of you in here had the pleasure of reading one of those around 12ets time. I’m glad I did at that time though, because ultimately following on from it and actually speaking with FileMaker directly led to me having my faith in FileMaker restored and changed my perspective in many ways.

Don’t you have a tiny element to develop on this topic??? Josh, you can definitely create custom solutions with Xojo, but you can’t make changes on the fly like you can in FileMaker. You’d make the changes and roll out the new compiled app.

It’s the same as rolling out a FileMaker Go solution where you runs locally rather than hosted. Have to laugh a little here, we had this somehow before.

So, I am not making my case you say, especially not because, I am not giving any backing up numbers. This is really somehow ridiculous. FileMaker never ever gave any number about their sales figures and I should give everything of my business to them, just for making my “case”, which simply is keeping a main feature of FM Advanced as it was for the last 20 years. Even forgot the plugin argument.

The runtime is just a bundled copy of PRO, it even has the same icons beneath although there is no layout mode available. And then there are things in business you have to do, to keep yourself in business, even if the numbers for these things are bad. We have a shop for our software, that only costs money, but how do we sell, if we skip the shop? We offer videos via Youtube, that only cost time and so on.

We do free telephone support for our customers. What are the “numbers” for which FMI hosts this forum? For what “numbers” do you engage in this forum? And during the latest 5 year they have speeded up development and is turning what was a desktop app with a server into a real development platform. And moving towards mobile platforms and more in the direction of cloud deployment. Very very interesting. But first of all Why some here are stating the opposite is making me wonder. Then you will truly feel well informed!

I disagree Carsten. I’m certified in 7 thru I’ve been in the FBA and previous incarnations of it. I attend or watch the recording of most of the webinars. I must admit that I stopped going to DevCon as the keynote is my only interest and the total cost to only see the keynote isn’t reasonable.

The problem is the lack of communication. Sadly, there’s not much communication within the FBA either. Then the new compiled app with then link back to whatever data set you have it connected to. Either an external server or a database compiled in the app itself, correct?

This still sounds a lot like a ton of extra development. From a business standpoint, while it can definitely work That’s a really big cost. But that’s custom development. Since this is really about the runtime issue this thread , I think the best approach as I mention earlier Have multiple tools in your toolbelt and use the best on for the job.

Just compared the FM-based solution I am developing with the product of another company that makes something similar. They have a lower 8-figure budget and 5 years of development while I will end up with a higher 6-figure budget and 2 years of development.

I run with FM and the other company runs with Open Source technology. The difference in the development price tag is easily explained. Ok, they do not have to pay royalties when selling their product. Important is the cost bottom line for the developer and the customer. Bejond cost concerns and on a purely functional level I identified my customers’ needs as follows on the user side :. Rich client with all the whistles and bells PC and mobile. Rich client with all the whistles and bells and offline capability PC and mobile.

The Runtime is something like 2. The web client is missing some of the more important whistles and bells and does not function offline. Web client can only replace 1. It cannot replace 2. So the question “what’s next?

I fully understand that developers who built their businesses on Runtime are concerned I don’t use Runtime but the way this “change” is handled deeply concerns me as I am building a large part of my business on FileMaker technology. Yes, Runtime is still around, but it will disappear in the future. Imagine standing on a carpet on which you are running your street shop and the carpet maker comes along and says “We gonna pull that carpet from under your feet sometime from now”.

You would be grateful if your carpet maker would have said “Please note that we will take this old and ragged carpet away in the near future. A new and better carpet will be put aside and we will assist you in moving over your shop before removing the old carpet”. And this even more as you would like to stay with that particular carpet maker but you cannot allow yourself just waiting for what to come without knowing.

They all have roadmaps looking 4 to 6 years into the future. Not to give their trade secrets away – they don’t. But to give guidance to their customers who in turn are assured and can make informed business decisions.

The only reasons in business that matter are the ones that keep your business going. Your reasons are valid from a development standpoint. No argument there. Would spend development time on a feature that doesn’t help you sell your product? For example, how much value does adding a “Quote of the Day” feature to your product? Not likely. Unless, the people that you sell to can show you that the feature helps your business.

While there may be sentimental value to it for the customer, there are not many customers that wouldn’t buy your product because it doesn’t have it. Then there are features that your customer may use that you were unaware of. If it’s a feature that can help the product and either:. It helps sell MORE or your product and is profitable, where it brings in more revenue than the expense to maintain it,.

If customer simply get vocal about a feature you aren’t planning on keeping, but can’t show you the business data that justifies it So much research is done in the industry I’m in. And I’ve learn a few really important things. One key one is this: People may get really vocal about a missing feature, but that doesn’t mean they use it. I know of one example, they built a feature into the product. After all the requests and the push to get it in to the product, over the span of a year FOUR users out of hundreds of thousands.

Feature gone. Data and a business plan to increase is what makes a business successful. But the runtime is not a “Quote of the Day”-feature But without some loudness and noise, one is often ignored or stays unheard. If you want to make a case for keeping a feature that FMI wants to abandon then the burden is on you to prove them wrong. You can’t use the fact that FMI does not disclose their sales numbers as an argument for not disclosing yours. Either the feature is important to you or it is not.

If it is, you want to show them where they are wrong. You can’t just say “I’m telling you that it is important”. The arguments are well known and not too hard to list out. I’m sure the folks at FMI have them listed too and whatever they missed they can get from this thread. I’m not in the runtime business so I can’t supply the Y.

But you are and you could talk to them to convince them that Y is bigger than they think it is. I’m not asking you to disclose your numbers here, this is not the place.

Be a partner, not an adversary. I think I could manage seeing a roadmap without expressing vitriol. Consider the opposite direction if FileMaker just cut off features without prior deprecation announcements.

Do we have a scientific controversion in which I have to offer arguments for a new theory? Do I have to do the market research for FileMaker? Do I as a customer should have any burden to prove something? What kind of self-understanding do you have regarding FMI or expect from me? Once again – hey, I am the customer, not any subcontractor.

What do they spend on the runtime? Honestly: They kept the runtime as their unbeloved black sheep of the family for years. No new features ever went exclusively into the runtime except the window close button that eventually closes a window since 12 I think, that took them years to make it happen finally.

Perhaps cost intensive features like the diagrams and the PDF printing never made it into the runtime. Instead they took networking out of it more than a decade ago.

And there is little love to detail either: They never deleted the unused layout mode icons in the runtime, to make it smaller, allthough one could do this in half an hour. They never understood or repaired the fmstrs. Bugs when creating a Runtime. In fact it will cost them more to delete every mentioning of “runtime” from website, documentation or help file than keeping the runtime feature.

Good point. Reminds me that I need to keep requesting this feature be made a available in Pro. I disagree. The most progress I’ve ever made in enacting change came from intelligent, prepared, calm and rational conversations. That doesn’t just enact change, it enacts a change in thoughts, in culture, in understanding. Soapbox preachers only enact an emotional response, or mob violence. Neither are beneficial or helpful.

I knew you were going to say “is not a ‘Quote of the Day’-feature'”. Because you missed the whole point. YOUR business stands on it. FMI’s business doesn’t. Unless you SHOW them how it does That is what being a partner is all about. I see people complaining about FMI’s communication, but I have to be brutally honest, if you aren’t seeing the communication, you aren’t listening.

Yeah, you may not like what you are hearing, but the communication as far as they are allowed to give us, IS happening. Others have even deeper relationships, and many of them tell you the same thing. FMI thinks deeply about what we say. Heck, RickKalman, himself told you he reads as many of our posts as he can, and that they appreciate the feedback and take it into consideration.

Where is the mysterious reaction from FMI here in this thread? They should change that, they should “allow” themselves more open communication. Learn to read accurately. And consider being realistic about ANY technology company providing details about future products. Also, do the DroidHeads hate Apple so much that they would refuse to use an Apple product? I didn’t say they responded to this thread. Rick’s comment in that thread was very far reaching.

Doesn’t matter that you don’t care for their company style. Many people wouldn’t care for my or your company style. It may prevent a couple of people from buying my your product. But not the majority. Look at some of the garbage that Apple and Microsoft and Google and Amazon have pulled over the years. Same with care companies. Yet, millions still buy from them. Either you like their product and you make the best with it, and provide feedback.

Or you move along. In either case, standing on the table and yelling that the company is a failure doesn’t help you. I appreciate you speaking up Intex. Without the communication from FMI, we can’t make plans for the future. I have a similar problem with the lack of communication from the FBA. It’s not much of a business alliance.

It’s not just about Runtimes, but the new Con-Conn pricing and the lack of communication too. Most of this conversation has been going on at a level way above mine. It’s been occurring among people who run businesses and enterprises where their very livelihoods are dependent on FileMaker Pro being an effective tool. OTOH, I’m a former state bureaucrat who just really enjoys working with FMP, and I’ve spent the last 15 years, since my retirement, doing database development pro bono for various non-profit organizations in my community, organizations which couldn’t conceivably afford my services if I were charging market rates.

Nonetheless, I thot I’d throw a few of my own observations into the pot as part of the stew. I’ve ginned up a grand total of 2 FMP runtime solutions in my entire life. One was for my sister, so she had a cool tool to use in parceling out her pair of Denver Nuggets season tickets among her cost-sharing partners. The other was for Madison Youth Choirs, so they could carry a copy of their music library database on an iPad into the actual music-library room where all the scores are stored and where they didn’t have either a computer or network access.

Both worked well, and the users were pleased. Neither was, strictly speaking, necessary. My sister had been getting by with a spreadsheet, and the MYC staff had been getting by with printouts. More pertinently, neither resulted in FMI selling any additional software. There was no way in hell my sister was going to spring for a copy of FMP just to run the Ticketer app, and MYC already had 5 copies of the program for its staff and didn’t need more.

As somebody who has only incidental use for runtime, I’m glad it’s there, and I’d sure like it to continue being there for uses like the above. Anyway, about posts within 1 day let them know about our concerns! I’m sorry but this just irks me to no end.

A lot of us spend time every day of every year helping people through their learning curve and building a sense of community. In this one sentence you’ve make a number of snide judgement calls. We should be here because we care enough about the FM platform to contribute. Your premise pigeon-holes me and I don’t care for that. You don’t know me. You have your dislikes and I have mine.

Don’t assume that the good people that are here to build that sense of community are only about drinking the Kool-Aid. Looking forward to seeing your posts helping other people out. While I am not directly impacted by the potential run-time deprecation fiasco, even I sometimes use run-times purely for convenience i.

Base Elements run-time. I also think “always connected” simply might not work for every situation, some potential customer probably has crappy internet or cell coverage.

However, let’s propose a solution to the problem – and with enough community support maybe Filemaker will pursue. I see five options, would any be suitable replacements for those of you that use run-time alot? It was hard to choose between Apple, Android, Java or any other type of developer. Java the Hutt also was an option. Commercially speaking FileMaker became just not viable.

Nobody is saying that FMI is making money from runtimes. I’m not privy to their master plan. I can only assume that they are not seeing what you are seeing. So convince them. Show then your numbers. What about it became not viable? With the exception of some FM Go style issues.

I too am shocked but not a little surprised. There has to be a better model. But I’ve hung my developer’s hat on the runtime model and this issue will now preoccupy me for sometime to come. Several things immediately come to mind. I would never expect for FileMaker to fully reveal their hand but even a motherhood type statement such as Frustration : For the longest time FileMaker has been creeping towards creating a truly wonderful tool for developers to create App like products that can be deployed like no other.

Over 20 years of development it has been always been just over the horizon for me and with FileMaker 13 the holy grail seemed in reach. This announcement makes it feels as if it has been snatched from our grasp. Undiminished Gratitude. FileMaker has given me a second career and a wonderful ride. I have faith in the product and the people behind it and I will go down fighting to keep my solutions viable with FileMaker and feel sure this conversation is not yet over.

Coincidently signed up as a business member today so am in the process considering my next move. The beauty of pointing a user to a link and having the product on their Desktop as a usable solution has always been a great selling point but I have yet to hit on the right business model so maybe this will push me to consider the options available. A secret is powerful when it is empty. Couldn’t agree more. I just spent 2 years developing and selling a Runtime application to health care professionals.

The only reason I keep upgrading my FileMaker Pro Advanced is because of continued development of my runtime solution. I would not spend hundreds of dollars getting each new version other wise. So how is FMI not making money from Runtime???? This would have several plus points for all the customers and developers – and therefor lead to better sales for FM:. So, hey FMI, simple question?

But even with SBA every former runtime product gets round about Euros more expensive – a nogo for many single user solutions – and people have to install twice FM and the solution instead of once the runtime. And in many cases the Euro surcharge is of no benefit for the customer if he gets a closed solution. Plus from my personal standpoint of marketing I very much prefer people installing and starting from the dock something like “INtex tralala” instead of using FileMaker and then opening an “INtex tralala file”.

With this tool fileMaker developers around the world make their FileMaker solutions more quickly and with less bugs. The tool relies solely on multiple people providing their services – free of charge :. Because we believe that the FileMaker community benefits as a whole from these services. FMI – please reconsider the value of keeping runtime functionality! I think replies to this post in just a few days says a lot and I do agree with the general cohort that this is a bad move by FMI.

Thankfully I have not used Runtime in all but one of my customer solutions so I personally have no issue.

I do of course hold sympathy to all those who are affected. In a way though I do “see” FMI’s roadmap ahead. Just looking at FM14 the major changes were developer oriented to make faster development, further streamlined design and a much faster WebDirect. I will stand on the last part. WebDirect is the future orientation of FMI. It is truly remarkable how WebDirect has unfolded but in my heart it still a Beta-version and I try to avoid it as much as possible.

I love paperless but sometimes its just plain necessary to print. This is just one of many issues of course. Runtime’s are an excellent solution for a disconnected app but FMI’s approach is one of a connected environment also indicated with peer-to-peer sharing in FM13, launch of WebDirect and the change in licensing.

Don’t know if many noticed but FMI has changed the wording from “Database” to “Solution” thus shifting the company more towards the rapid app development world rather than just a database management software. This of course was obvious years back now. I sincerely hope that Runtime stays for at least up to FM16 but it certainly has an expiry date. Wow – this is a hot topic! In this instance FileMaker is telling you approximately 18 months in advance. They are providing ample notice that things are changing.

Bear in mind that they’re owned by Apple, which is pretty keen on secrecy. They’re not a developer tools company, so they won’t provide a roadmap like a firm that is strictly a developer tools firm. Given the pace of change in the space they’re in I’d expect and hope that their plans are pretty fluid.

There’s a lot of change going on in the business environment around them and they need some latitude to respond. If this is going to pose a major problem for your business, then this is the wrong forum to solve it. If your business is predicated on what FileMaker does or doesn’t do then you need to have a close relationship with them. They’re much more open than they used to be in the past. You need to speak to the FileMaker people in your country.

In Germany sorry guessing here they’re pretty approachable from my experience. They were at DotFMP which you should attend this June in Berlin a couple of years ago and more than open to chat, buy beers, have beers bought for them, and just generally be nice guys.

Building a relationship with FileMaker doesn’t happen overnight. Around 15 years ago I was pretty negative and vocal about many of the things they were doing. It seemed like communications were going into a black hole, so i know what you’re experiencing. It took some work on my part and reframing how the relationship worked. However you need to take some steps to build a positive constructive relationship with FMI. They are open to it, but it’s going to take some work and some time. Getting in touch with them and getting to know them as people is a first step.

They’d rather have you inside the tent pissing out rather than outside the tent pissing in. But bear in mind you’re dealing with a small team of people and if you’re yelling at them they probably won’t listen. If you build a business case with solid numbers they’ll be more receptive. To do otherwise is missing one of the key strategic underpinnings of running a business – ensuring your relationship with partners and suppliers.

Obviously it will happen and i prefer waiting more time and get a comforting answer that have just a rapid “acknowledgement of delivery”. Discussion is already two days old So “it is still almost night in the US” is no argument at all now. Or perhaps: “Oh, we are astonished that this announcement produces such a wave – we have to think about it again – wait for a reaction to come soon. Say what you want, but i do think this temporarily silence is more a proof that this subject is seriously taken, and thus a reflection time is necessary.

Also FMI is not a grocery with 2 employees. All take more time. And, yes, i am definitely an optimist and positive person. It’s a relatively minor point, but I would miss not having BaseElements running as a runtime when I’m developing. I use it most of the time, in a separate window or desktop. I know it doesn’t have to be used as a runtime but it’s always seemed to me the best way to use it. I imagine many developers will feel the same – or perhaps they use it differently.

I find many of your arguments a bit strange or not in accordance with the actual situation. And how should FileMaker be able to react within 1 or 2 days. They are usually very observant and following all important discussions. No problem on a Mac, but I don’t think you can do this on Windows. Why not? They have had their time thinking before calling the runtime deprecated I guess.

We live in fast, busy, modern times and two days with no reaction at all is already long in my eyes Stop the complaining and noise. Write a letter to FMI and present your challenges and concerns in a respectful manner, which I actually suggested very early in this thread.

If you do not have anything constructive to contribute with, then stay off. This should be a place for asking questions, getting answers and maybe suggesting new things. With public pressure I guess they earlier see a need to react.

They have “chimed in” for smaller reasons. To be honest, I really appreciated your early recommandation to write a letter. Thank you! I would also say the a grouped letter would be more efficient. About “noise”, i, and some of us here, think differently. Sometimes noise is necessary. And i think it is written in european D. A in some ways. One can easily unsubscribe if one don’t want to hear it anymore. And just a curiosity : are you using Runtime feature or not?

I think this topic is showing that our community is broken in two “equal” parts : whose are building runtime solution and others. Some of the latters applause FMI decision and probable deletion of its “second class” application. First are shocked. I’m sure several have been presented here. Sorry Beverly, but i didn’t see any that meet my needs. The developer’s freedom to create Desktop standalone apps cannot be replaced by FM Go nor Webdirect, where even the preview mode is missing.

I really try to be positive here but, trust me or not, it is a real chalenge! If some here are offended by talking about facts, I excuse myself. But reality stays reality. Only one guy had a distortion field, FMI has not. I know what ranting customers are – had one just this morning on the telephone. But he was really ranting, claiming that some information was missing on our website.

He can read, he is not dumb and we are tricky cheaters. That is ranting for real – nothing I do. I am sure for many developers, the alternatives, at least those we are so far aware of, are not satisfactory. A particular issue which I don’t think has been mentioned so far is the fact that plugins cannot be included in Go or WebDirect at least not in this context.

I expect for many solutions, excluding plugins would represent a serious ‘downgrade’ as far as the end-users are concerned. OK, so the alternatives don’t work for you. It sounds like ‘runtime’ and only ‘runtime’ will work. Looks like “yes”, unless we can really discuss another bright new future.

I would suggest the people who are most affected to create a petition to be forwarded to FMI with the outcome. C Keept Runtime for at least 2 more versions until the rest of the technology catches up. Post your link here and the interested parties can cast their vote and send the results to FMI. A comment on the plugins by the way.

Ok, plugins have been developed for some time now using C but take a look at what’s out there, most of the development work is done for browsers with HTML5, PHP, etc.

I have pulled little genies out the bottle using HTML into web viewers for the WebDirect and I would be a very strong advocate if FMI provides a better alternative to add your custom code this way going forward rather than using Plugins the current way.

This is a useful argument and I appreciate all the issues, so we may see if there are alternatives not previously discussed. Sorry, that was someone else in the thread. Didn’t mean to pin you down specifically on that. I’ve been developing databases professionally for 30 years, so I’ve seen a few come and go. I’ve seen plenty of good apps come and go too. The most common cause has been too little or no revenue stream. The market takes up what it will easily absorb then cost of sales overtakes revenue.

End of game. Had Apple not been pouring resources into FM it would have died from lack of revenue a long time ago. Let’s face it, what percentage of the market place buys or even contemplates buying a database dev tool? Successful business to business relies on both parties making a buck, so if my FM app is generating revenue for me then it stands to reason that File Maker should get their slice, after all it’s their engine. I want to pay FM money for each and every seat. I want a partnership with File Maker.

If they make money then I do. However, I find the current licensing unwieldy, to say the least. If I did not know better I would think the File Maker had a vast warehouse stacked with boxes that had to be moved.

I have a problem with a user needing to run a very fat client, not to mention no rental option for less than 5 users. I still find it extremely difficult to believe that FM would simply hack off it’s developer’s small app base. I have only been using FM for four years, but I can see they are no fools. I suspect there will be a new and not free vehicle for small app distribution and I am not surprised that there is no mention of it in the general press. Perhaps those in the Alliance know something, but that’s a closed shop and for good reason.

I want real RTS and I’m more than happy to pay for it FileMaker Inc. Apple bought Claris Corporation, where the FileMaker product was one of many products, in mid-end of the ’90’s. That is how FileMaker Inc.

I don’t think Apple has put in a single penny to FileMaker Inc. It is more the other way around. Yes, but in a very limited extend. But I definitely like the idea of being able to use runtimes for several purposes.

Just happend that we have been busy with may other things. I have never said that I do not understand that such a statement is worrying for companies, that have this option as a key to their business model. In my first post I actually came with a couple of suggestions to possibly alternatives. I even wrote Dominique to pay attention to this thread, as I think some companies will have some real concerns and needs to plan for their future, if they rely their business on runtimes.

I also gave a couple of ideas to him as well. However, talk nice and be constructive if you want to move forward and try to make things happen. Just the same with your wife I was told that by a senior FM employee, and I can’t see how they can make a dollar without app royalties.

However, you and I will never see the FM specific balance sheets. But to get some more customers, small ‘apps’ are needed – runtimes among others. If somebody has a small banking tool that shows everytime when quitting the FMI logo, he or she will know FileMaker.. I had to laugh. Since you posted several times after this one. Thank you for the giggle. Other ‘alternatives’ mentioned also included other products.

Take some time to learn some of the other products. Try replicating one of your simplest files in, lets say, Xojo. Free to develop and test. Come back and talk about FileMaker after you have completed a compiled app that replicates all of the functionality of one of your simpler solutions.

This is intended just a moment of perspective, its not intended to be aggressive. I just want you to stop and consider what options you are looking at. My guess is that it will take you 6 months to a year to redevelop your app. If you finish it and get all the bugs out, you will have a great alternative to create compiled apps.

If you don’t, you will have a whole new appreciation for FileMaker. As I said, I was told by someone that should know. It may have been nonsense, but I took it at face value I have no intention of trying to defend hearsay, so, for that sake of this thread I will accept yours and Claus’s views of File Maker’s profitability. But I don’t really care if Apple propped up FM or not.

That’s history and means nothing in the current context. That’s not the point I was trying to get across. What I wanted to stress is that royalty free does not work, unless File Maker will and should charge where ever they can. Remember Clipper, Dbase, Superbase, Access? All free or minimal RTS. I will not purchase the new Filemaker if the runtime option is removed. I am a developer of simple cheap solutions and would not make a living, if the end user had to purchase Filemaker as well as the solution.

Sorry – I probably wasn’t very clear. There are clearly many alternatives beyond FileMaker, albeit relatively impractical. What wouldn’t be feasible would be to have one FileMaker solution for networked solutions etc. Remember that ‘deprecated’ does not equate to ‘removed’. It’s just an alert that it may be removed in future versions. We do not know the future, but it’s good that we can discuss options here now before runtime is no longer available.

Josh, as Xojo developer, I think your assessment is accurate. Xojo is amazing, but you do have to do more work to get what you get in FileMaker.

It’s an investment though. Once you go through all that, you can release your apps without any never ending lease payments to FileMaker. Over the years, I’ve built up a very strong library of FileMaker ‘stuff’ that I can reuse over and over to make our development faster like modules, FMClips, FMSnippets, custom functions, and such. I’m doing the same in Xojo. I’m creating those modules and tools that I can reuse. It’s a big investment, but in the end I’ll have code that I can reuse over and over and sell solutions to folks without the burden of having to pay FileMaker every time a client buys my app.

You are talking about compiled apps. As opposed to custom development. I would guess that custom development isn’t a reality in Xojo, correct? Even if your needs are maybe different of some of us, you were really and always open mind.

The Community is fortunate to having you as a fellow member. Even it is not so visible, i try contribute as well as i can. Am not in the secret of FMI plans and do not personally know Dominique. However, my best wish is for the end of the free Runtime can be simultaneous of a brand new FileMaker AppBuilder that give us opportunity to create first class apps, simply using our FileMaker skill, and also remunerate FileMaker for each seat we deploy, as it always should be.

That’s precisely the case you need to make to FMI. What intex fails to see is that there is difference between stating some arguments and making your case. If you have numbers to back your claim that runtimes should be kept around, then sit down with FMI and present your case. Those numbers are private to you and your business so they do not belong in this public forum.

Like any other feature you can only lobby effectively if you back it up by numbers. Ultimately FMI is going to decide whether it is worth their money to keep engineers working on runtimes. Intex of course will chime in and say: “I don’t want to lobby, I’m a customer and I deserve to be heard”. To that I will answer: you are getting heard, but you are not making your case. I sincerely thank you to give all this attention to my humble case.

Following yours and Carl’s advice, i will write a letter since i think actually dont’ have access to the appropriate people at FMI maybe, why not, directly to Dominique, and expose my case, the numbers, and suggesting what a royalty system could be profitable to all of us. However, as you know, a given number cannot be seen the same by a company as Soliant or FileMaker, than my self-made 3 persons company. But yes, definitely, i will try this way and we will see.