In a recent post, The State of FileMaker 13, a couple of readers wrote comments expressing frustration with the licensing costs of FileMaker 13, especially FileMaker Go. Since it seems to be a controversial topic, here are my thoughts.
A History Lesson
Before FileMaker Go, the FileMaker family consisted of FileMaker Pro (client) and FileMaker Server. FileMaker Pro was sold (and still is) by the number of installs, starting around $300 per computer. FileMaker Server was sold for a fixed price of $1,000.
Then in 2010 (circa FileMaker Pro 11), FileMaker, Inc., (FMI) released FileMaker Go. It was originally two separate apps, one for the iPhone and another for the iPad. The price of the iPhone app was $20 and the iPad app was $40. Each app was a one-time purchase for unlimited use.
$20/$40 is considered expensive for apps in the App Store. Although there are other apps with premium prices, these prices did deter some customers from using FileMaker Go. It also made it challenging for companies to submit payment and then install the app on multiple devices through iTunes.
The Next Step
When FileMaker 12 was released, FMI made FileMaker Go 12 a free app. Anyone could download it from the App Store. This was a great marketing move because it removed two significant barriers:
- You did not have to pay for it to test it, and
- Anyone could and install it through the App Store.
During the FileMaker 12 product life cycle, customers got used to using FileMaker Go for free. In fact, if your database was uploaded to a hosting provider, you could deploy a FileMaker solution to iOS devices for as little as $29/month. This was great for users because anyone could get up and running for almost nothing. And, it was good for FMI, for a while.
The market penetration that FMI received from making FileMaker Go 12 was good for the company and the community. However, if you know anything about pricing (one of my favorite topics), a penetration strategy is not financially stable indefinitely. At some point, the company must pivot and make a return on the investment (ROI). And that is what FMI did with FileMaker Go 13.
FileMaker Go Today
At the 2013 FileMaker Developer Conference, FMI showed a preview of the FileMaker 13 product line. Many of the new features were designed to help developers and users create more effective mobile solutions. There was also an “Under the Hood” where Dominique Goupil, president of FMI, suggested the licensing model for FileMaker 13 would evolve. Although he did not give specifics, it was a heads up that a change was coming.
When FileMaker 13 shipped, the licensing for FileMaker Pro (per install) and FileMaker Server (fixed price) remained the same. FileMaker Go remained a free app to download. So, users could continue to use it for a stand-alone solution at no cost. The change was the price to connect to FileMaker Server.
The new licensing model uses concurrent connections. If you have an average of 5 users connecting to FileMaker Server with FileMaker Go, then you need to purchase 5 connection licenses. If you have an average of 10, you need 10 licenses. The cost per license starts at $180 per connection depending on the total number of licenses. If you need more connections, you can purchase them directly in the FileMaker Server admin console. (FMI is also using the same licensing model for WebDirect.)
Is It Fair?
This is the real question people are asking. On the surface, moving from paid to free, back to paid seems like bait-and-switch. However, you can also view it as FMI experimenting with how to price a new product. Think about your own business. How do you learn to price something? You experiment, or at least you should. FMI had to try different strategies to find the right one. Also, it is completely fair for FMI to recoup its investment in FileMaker Go.
If it is fair, then the next question is, “Does the new licensing model work for you?” First, realize there are a couple of different ways to buy licenses. The $180 per concurrent license is for a volume license (one-time fee). FMI also offers annual licensing which gives you the ability to pay a reduced price each year. The annual cost for a concurrent license starts at $60. If price is your objection, then consider annual licensing.
Second, what is the value you receive from using FileMaker Go? Does using your solution on the iPhone or iPad create more revenue than the cost of the volume or annual license? I would suggest you are probably making at least 10 times (or greater) the revenue vs. the cost. What is the benefit to your gross revenue, gross profit, cost savings, productivity, customer service, quality of life, etc., from your mobile solution? If you do the math, I think you will see things in a different light.
Do you agree or disagree? Do you think FMI is right or wrong with the pricing of FileMaker 13? You can leave a comment using the form below.
Is it correct to say that someone with an average of 5 users needs 5 concurrent licenses? The way it’s worded on the FileMaker site it implies that someone who has a peak requirement of 5 users needs 5 licenses, regardless of the average.
I have a client whose system is absolutely dormant most of the time but as an event approaches numerous employees and customers want to access it (currently via IWP). Paying up for that peak demand would be a real stretch.
At first I thought that this would simply mean that we would have to forgo the wonderful improvements of WebDirect and stick with the clunking IWP, getting more or less what we paid for. But I’ve recently heard that FileMaker is leaning on our ISP to ditch support for 12 asap and move us all on to 13. At that point something is going to break, particularly as the ISP doesn’t offer a shared server for WebDirect (because of the concurrency problem), so we’d have the step change of the cost of a dedicated server as well.
I understand that a model based on concurrent users is substantially more complex than the effectively unlimited capacity of IWP. But surely someone could come up with a model that measured actual usage and charged this out in an appropriate fashion without hitting us with what by my calculation will be an effective 500% increase in hosting costs. If anyone is offering such a service, please let me know.
John – The standard use case for concurrent licensing, WebDirect and FileMaker Go, is the total number of users will be greater than the number of users for peak demand. For example, if you have 20 total users, you may only have 50% (10 users) for peak demand (concurrent licenses).
It sounds like your solution has a significant spike in usage near the yearly event. You may want to consider Annual Licensing since it would reduce the initial expenditure by roughly 65%.
Do not see it that way, FMS 12 went from supporting 250 iPads to FMS 13 supporting 5. The costs to support just 20 in FMS 13 is in the thousands of dollars. Your theory of using experiments to find the best pricing model is only so flexible. When the experiment range is this drastic the base will feel cheated, which I definitely do. Your article feels like you are currying favor with Filemaker management. Maybe I am the only person who feels insulted by this price jump so take this as just a lone and frustrated opinion. — Gene
Gene – I think it would be difficult to find another environment that would allow 250 iPads users to access a server for free. It was inevitable that FMI would change the licensing model to capture the value being created for customers with FileMaker Go. For customers who already have FileMaker Server 12, you can use continue to use it with FileMaker Go 13.
For the record, I am not trying to “curry favor” with FMI. The opinion in the post is my own.
Kirk,
Going from free to several thousand dollars for supporting 20 iPads is not a reasonable experimental price variation range for a product originally priced at $40 each. There is no suggestion that you are acting as a puppet. Whether the views are yours or not though does not detract from it “feeling” that your case is currying favor. True?
—
Thanks,
Gene
To John: yes, you’re right that the limit is based on simultaneous user logins (i.e. peak # of users). The challenge to FileMaker hosting providers (of which my company, SavvyData, is one) is how to manage the proportioning of the fixed (and expensive) number of WebDirect connections. Short of embedding additional code into our users’ solutions, we are currently not able to cap usage by file/solution. Our current solution is this scenario is based on the honor system… all clients that share a server tell us how many seats they need at max and when their peak usage times are. In this way multiple clients can share a pool of licenses — but only if they all play nice together. 😉 And thanks, Kirk, for opening this topic!
Lee
Thanks for the reply. I’m surprised that the server logs don’t give you an objective view of which files have been accessed by how many users for how long. If you were to take the total cost and divide it pro rata to that data it would be equitable (though, admittedly, not predictable quarter on quarter). Might have to build a database to do it for you…
I would imagine that a more difficult problem would be coping with overlapping peaks in demand from different sets of users. I guess if all my clients jumped on just before the other customer’s clients arrived the system would block all of his and none of mine, which is hardly equitable. Maybe there would have to be a bit of load balancing by type of client. It happens that the example I was talking about has predictable peaks, so that information might help, but that might be comparatively rare.
Lee – You are right. The concurrent licensing for WebDirect and FileMaker Go has created a challenge for hosting providers. One idea would be to purchase an Annual License “unlimited” concurrent license. Another idea is to periodically audit the Access Log to determine if specific customer is hogging the concurrent licenses. Thanks for your comments.
Yes, I also hope some more finely controlled ways of apportioning concurrent connections between different paying customers on the same shared FMServer, will come with FMS14. How about by Access Group?
Richard – I agree. The ability to “assign” concurrent license connections to an Admin Group would be helpful. Thanks for your comment.
I think that the “bait and switch” is exactly what FM has done. I would like to see some enhancements that would make FMGo work like a normal app (such as closing out of it when the “exit application” command is used) so that developers can actually develop a product which can be sold to novice users. I understand the need for revenue (without it you go out of business) but i think by making multiuser environments pay a excess premium it will lead some developers to look elsewhere for solutions.
Mike – The intention of FileMaker is to create custom business solutions, not to resell FileMaker solutions in the iTunes store. If the cost of the concurrent licenses under Volume Licensing it too high, some other options are:
– Choose another environment
– Continue to use FMS 12 with FMG 13
– Use Annual Licensing to reduce the initial expenditure
I think the only real issue with the FM13 pricing model is the FM12 model. In and of itself it’s not unreasonable to charge per connection when the clients themselves, whether WebDirect or iOS, are free. WebDirect and iOS are free thin clients that will very much impact the sale of FMP13 clients. FMI has to balance that potential revenue loss.
In our case the pricing change has zero effect as WebDirect will not work in our office environment (we require printing), we already have a functional CWP solution for outside the office, and on iOS we’ve built a custom app. I recognize that others have been using free iOS clients for a large number of connections but that was a loophole. FMI can not subsist primarily on server sales and they needed to close that loophole. FileMaker is no good to users if the company is not profitable.
Paul – Well said. The contrast between free and $60/connection (annually) is reasonable.
Kirk,
Thanks for posting this interesting article. There are a couple points I’d like to chime in on.
First, you imply that pricing is based on average concurrent users, just to clarify, peak may be a better term to use. A minor point, but one that I would hate a potential user to get caught on.
Next, you address the value of FileMaker Go as a server client. If we take the highest possible price point $180 or even the lowest price of (as I read the pricing) $180 that means that we have to decide if that is worth it.
While I understand the argument of value pricing for service industry offerings, I am not sure the same argument can be made for products. One way I think of it is if the ability to connect to a server was a $180 in app purchase, how many users would buy it?
If you consider it not as a value pricing decision (and I’m not even sure the pricing succeeds that way) but as a competitive pricing decision, then you are left with an even more complicated evaluation. What is the main competitor to adding a concurrent connection to server for mobile and web users? For web I guess it would be custom web publishing, at say 25 users that means my web development has to be around $4,500.00 to feel comparable in price.
I am not going to get into how much web can be built for that price, but it is an interesting thought. On the mobile app side, the decision is almost too complicate to consider. There are no real competitors to just FM Go server connections, but there are competitors to mobile solutions with server connectivity. They are industry specific and the complexity of customizations comes back in but that is how many of my customers are trying to evaluate the options.
The third thing to consider is the sheer complexity of the pricing. I know every time i have to explain to a customer the pricing moving from FileMaker 12 to 13 I do not look forward to the conversation. I have many customers staying in 12 because of concurrent licensing.
Don’t take my comments as pessimism on the product, FileMaker Go 13 is a great product. Virtually unparalleled in the mobile world, but the licensing is not what the industry or market is wanting.
Perhaps it is the plethora of 99 cent apps, perhaps it is the; it’s $20 or $40; no it’s free; no it $180 but only if you connect to server, and let me explain concurrency switches (and you have to buy 5 at a time, except you get one for free so the first time you buy 4…) pricing, but my customers are not jumping on board at the pace the product quality would suggest they should.
As to the idea that they are experimenting with pricing, I hope they have a more reasoned approach than that.
FileMaker has an opportunity to do amazing things in the mobile world. They have an innovative product, and while their licensing and pricing feels unique, I’m not sure it’s innovative….
$4500 will get you almost nothing. With an in-house developer that’s maybe three weeks of development. Outsourced it’s less than a week of development.
Paul,
Thanks for reading and responding.
Although you responded to the only point I said I think wasn’t worth note, so I am not sure how to reply….
I guess I agree, although I may debate the actual math you used…
Court
It wasn’t clear that you considered it not worth noting and in our shop it is the route we went a long time ago. I thought it worth noting for readers who might not be clear on how much web development costs. A lot of people do not realize the enormous number of hours that go into database driven websites. For the math I used $50/hour in house, $150/hour out sourced, which are numbers from my experience although the out sourcing amount is a little low these days.
For your other points, I made my own post from my perspective so didn’t really see the need to expound further. I understand the frustration of the price shift but I also think the mistake on FMI’s part is not the current pricing but the pricing for FM12.
Paul,
I realized my reply might have sounded smarmy, it wasn’t my intent.
Sorry if it came across that way.
Court
No worries. 🙂
I probably come off as more curt than I am. It’s a good discussion to have and good to try and cover all the bases.
Paul
Court – To respond to your points:
1. You are correct. WebDirect and FMGo licensing is the peak number of users, not the average. As I mentioned in another comment, the general expectation is the total number of users will be greater than the peak.
For example if a customer has 20 total FMPro users and 10 peak FMGo users, the customer would pay roughly $300 per FMPro install vs. $180 per FMPro concurrent connection for Volume Licening. Annual Licensing would be less.
2. I think you actually made the case for pricing products on value in your response. 🙂 In short, if a mobile solution can help the business generate at least $1000 of revenue per user (and it is probably way more), this represents a 5-to-1 ROI.
3. It seems like the main objection is the “shock” to the free model of FM12 to the paid model of FM13. Personally, I wish FMI had changed everything to a concurrent licensing model. FMI is paying attention to this post. Hopefully, this discussion will help them continue to make improvements.
Thanks for your well thought out comments.
Kirk,
Glad FMI is listening to this and hopefully all the thoughts on the issue.
I think we agree on 1. so I’ll move on from it. 😉
On value pricing, while I definitely state the case, I intended to fall short of making the case.
I believe that value pricing has it’s place in the marketplace, but in my experience no product really tries to place it’s price point at a value proposition, and the more packaged the product is, the farther from a value pricing it gets.
I believe market pricing is a better term for what products do, and what Filemaker should do with Go. I now that for my customers, the price to upgrade to 13 with the concurrency issues as they are does not feel like a good value.
Customer will compare a license cost to what they feel the market is charging for similar solutions. When FileMaker charges 299 for a single desktop license I believe users compare it to applications like Office Pro at a similar price and it feels like a valid price point.
When connecting to a server they paid over a thousand dollars for from their free FileMaker Go gets a $180 price tag, they balk. I’m not sure what internal comparison they do, but my guess it’s to “free” which is what they feel that sort of feature used to cost.
This leads me to point 3, and to that I’ll say I’m not sure if it is shock to the change or shock to the price in general, but I agree, there is a big disconnect to the expected and real price that they see.
In addition to the shock tho’ I think that the complexity is definitely not helping anyone. I think buying concurrent connections in blocks of 5 feels arbitrary and the price is too high and should either be much lower or at least scale with volume, which I don’t believe it does currently.
Court – One the best examples of value pricing for products is the iPhone. Before Apple showed customers that they needed an iPhone (stated the value), no one was willing to pay $400-$600 for a cell phone. By looking at the value created, Apple also created a new product class.
When products are priced based on the market, it is either because the seller does not understand how to sell based on value, or the product does not have a unique value proposition.
Regarding point 3, in my view FileMaker Go licensing is a better deal than FileMaker Pro licensing. Pro costs $108 annually, $324 one-time. Go costs $60 annually or $180 one-time. Also, with Pro you have to by a license for each install. With Go, you only have to buy enough licenses for peak usage. Depending on how much greater total users is than peak, it could be an additional savings.
Whether we agree or not, I sincerely appreciate the professional discussion.
Kirk,
In moving to conversation towards unity, let me make the following two observations.
I’ll let the value pricing discussion for another day, maybe at DevCon in a few months. 😉
Filemaker Pro scales in price from $329 (as you mention) for a single seat to $174 at the large scale of volume licensing. FileMaker concurrent server licensing doesn’t scale at all. Meaning the 50th concurrent seat costs the same as the 2nd.
Also, if as a robust user i have a copy of Pro installed and also own an iPad, I end up paying again to use the same data on an iOS device when I’ve already paid for the copy of Pro to access it from my other devices.
These are both qualms my own clients have brought up. Issues which I think are hurdles that Filemaker needs to address in their licensing structure to maintain the market share they should have with a product as well positioned as theirs is.
Court – The beer is on me. 🙂
These are good points but I am curious as to how competing products compare. It’s been awhile since I looked through pricing models for database platforms but I seem to remember that for thin clients the concurrent connection model was fairly standard and per connection prices fairly high.
As a somewhat similar type product. Alpha Anywhere is $999 a year for developer license which includes unlimited multi-user run time support for desktop applications. The Web App Server which serves web and mobile applications is $399 per year for 10 session server and $999 per year for unlimited session server.
Kirk, Thanks for writing this. It not only informs developers but also gets the conversation started.
I understand companies have to make money and I’m not even pretending I’m qualified to say what their prices need to be so they can do so. I realize database software is expensive.
We’re rolling back to FMS12 primarily because we can’t afford the price FMI established was fair. I called FMI to purchase 5 mobile connections for my existing configuration – When it’s settled the annual cost to maintain those 5 mobile connections is more than the annual cost to maintain all 100+ of my FMPro Clients.
No matter which side you’re on, it seems absurd that I can connect my entire office of 100+ users via FMPro for less than it will cost me to connect 5 mobile users via FMGo.
I can’t make a specific recommendation (because I’m not a pricing expert), but do I feel strongly that FMI should continue to test different price strategies.
..Just my two cents..
CORRECTION to my post, I was misinformed a bit about the cost – the cost to maintain FMPro Clients is far larger, it’s not even close to the mobile connections cost.
However, the price to host my entire server is less than it will cost me to connect 5 mobile users to it.
Jessica – The reason the price for hosting is less than 5 mobile users is because the provider is using FMS 12. If it is FMS 13, they have to pay for the concurrent licenses. Thanks for your comments.
Great discussion! I love FileMaker 13 and what I can do with it, although I’ve not dipped my toe into WebDirect just yet (letting others find all the bugs for a great v rev).
1. Those of us who attend DevCon regularly, and work with a variety of customers, rather than strictly in-house, were likely better prepared for the change. Before hints at DevCon, we saw how free FileMaker Go was impacting FileMaker sales, and realized that licensing model couldn’t sustain itself. I have a client with 2 licenses of Pro, using a hosting service, with 10-15 users (sales reps, managers, board of directors) accessing the solution with Go. This generates income for me and the hosting company, but not so much for FileMaker. A free app solved deployment problems, especially in corporate and government environments, but that revenue needed to be replaced.
2. I agree with Court about the complexity of the pricing structure, the size of connection packs and price not scaling with volume. Confusing pricing makes the customer feel like they are being bamboozled, whether or not it’s true. By not scaling with volume, as Pro licenses do, a volume customer gets to a point where adding a Go user is not much less than adding a Pro user. I realize use cases are vastly different, but it creates a disconnect. A small shop self-hosting with a peak of 6 or 7 users has to pay for 10, and at that price, just see that they are spending $540-$720 for something they _may_ grow into. So, not a lot of value for that second connection pack. If that price scaled, or they could add singles, perhaps that perception would be different.
3. I knew a price change was coming, and my first reaction was the price point was too high, not because it had been free, but because it had been a $40 app. I’m not sure what price would have felt less jarring, but $40 to $180 felt like a leap.
4. Not to complicate already complicated pricing, but I’m not sure about lumping Go connections and WebDirect connections in the same bucket. They certainly come with different server hardware requirements. I would expect this to be a challenge for the hosting providers, especially in these early days of WebDirect. Having an unlimited server license may work very well for a shared server with only Go connections, but struggle with just a few WebDirect connections, especially if the solution wasn’t designed specifically for WebDirect. (I know we’ve seen those recommendations, but will every mom-and-pop who rolled their own database have seen them?) Seems like hosting providers would benefit from a way to allocate connections to groups within server, and to each type of connection.
5. I don’t have a lot of IWP solutions out there, but those folks are in a holding pattern for now. In most cases, WebDirect isn’t ready for prime time for these solutions. Even if it were, there’s the likelihood of needing to rework most of the IWP solution. Yes, once WebDirect matures, and the interface is rebuilt to take advantage of WebDirect features, end users will have a much better experience. That’s a great value. Is it great enough to offset the increased cost, not just of the connections, but of the redesign? I suspect I’ll need to have some fantastic examples ready to demo to sell that. (Fortunately, only a few instances where this will apply, and new deployments will just face the hardware hurdle, as I think the connections cost will be offset by lower development costs compared to custom web publishing.)
Lisette – Excellent points. I agree that many customers are holding for now due to the changes in FM13. Hopefully, this public discussion will help FMI make decisions for the future. I really appreciate your well thought out comments.
Like many FileMaker consultants, when the FileMaker 13 platform was first released I was disappointed by the change in licensing strategy. But a few short months later, I’ve changed my position a bit. Here’s why…
I realized that in order to service my hosting clients properly, I needed to invest in infrastructure. Over the past few months, I’ve migrated from hosting using low-cost dedicated Mac Minis to expensive Amazon EC2 servers. The increase in cost was significant, but the resulting increase in performance and reliability are worth it. (Where WebDirect killed those tired old Mac Minis, it flies on the EC2 instances.)
My point is that in order to service my clients, I needed to invest in the FileMaker 13 platform myself, and do so in ways that I hadn’t needed to with previous versions. There’s the beefier server, the concurrent connection licenses, and so on. That investment has already paid off. So that’s my portion of the “price of FileMaker.”
As far as my clients go, the move to the FileMaker 13 platform has required an investment on their part as well – particularly those who were running Go-based apps, because I’ve had to pass on the cost of the concurrent licenses to them through higher hosting fees. That’s their portion of the “price of FileMaker.”
I look at the overall pricing situation like this: If a client, or prospective client, balks at one of the FileMaker-based solutions that I propose simply because the “FileMaker licensing it too expensive” then I haven’t done my job properly – because clearly they aren’t seeing the value of the solution that I’m proposing. And if the client is being that frugal, then chances are that they aren’t a good fit for me anyway.
Here’s one more thing to consider: For clients with a large number of Go-based users, perhaps using a sync approach is an option. Maybe they don’t need to hold a connection to the server open for very long. Instead, they can sync – push records that they’ve changed and added on their device, and get any records that they need from the server – and then close the connection. In theory, that should reduce the number of concurrent licenses needed. And those users might see better performance as well. (I’m living and breathing “sync” right now, which is probably why this comes to mind.)
It will be interesting to see what happens next – with pricing, WebDirect, and so on. This year’s DevCon should be another good one!
— Tim
Tim – I like your perspective. Do you see FM13 as a cost or an investment? Now, if only someone was working an open-source sync framework. 🙂
http://timdietrich.me/fmeasysync/
Kirk —
An investment is “a thing that is worth buying because it may be profitable or useful in the future.”
I see FileMaker as a cost when the investment is made, but it is one of those rare investments that becomes almost immediately profitable and useful.
— Tim
Tim – My question was rhetorical. 🙂
Ha! Well, I guess that’s what happens when I reply to things at 4:02 AM.
I’m a FileMaker developer and I’m required to advise customers about FileMaker software licensing.
This can be stressful at the best of times as there are a range of license options for a range of FileMaker products (Server/Pro/Go).
This is also complicated by the fact that certain features may only be available in certain versions and correcting license purchase errors may be complex.
This process is also often tied up with convincing a new client of the benefits of FileMaker over alternatives before they finally decide to go ahead with a project.
Recently a big part of the pitch to prospective clients was the ‘free’ iOS client.
I guess I understand some of the reasons for the changes FMI made to pricing with FM13. However I’ll admit the changes caught me by surprise in the middle of a project. To keep faith with the customer I have ended up bearing some of the additional concurrent license costs myself.
Pricing of the FileMaker products has in the past been quite predictable.
FileMaker hasn’t ‘experimented’ this dramatically with pricing over it’s history.
Annual purchase options for FM Pro and FM Server were a welcome addition, however it is optional. There remains similar ‘full’ licenses for FM Pro and FM Server as customers migrate from version to version.
I think the approach taken with FM Go has been different.
Say a customer who chose to pay annually for FMS12 and 10 x FMP12, while using up to 20 instances of FM Go (‘free’). With the FM13 release this customer can exercise the option of automatically upgrading FMS and FMP under the agreement, however they need to pay for additional concurrent licenses for the Go users (if they want to 20 iPads to still have access).
I guess you could say that the customer should not have assumed that Go would be ‘free’ forever, and that the user could simply continue to use v12 products. When purchasing the annual license isn’t it at least partly an investment in future releases? (Especially when you know a release is due). The decision to purchase an annual license may have rested on factors like the expectation of an imminent new version.
There may be single key features in a new version that a particularly desirable to a developer or customer (running server-side scripts from Go springs to mind) that are only available in the latest version.
Regarding the general pricing strategy, doesn’t FileMaker need further market penetration in general and especially with FM Go?
Doesn’t market penetration (Go) lead to increased sales of core products (Pro)?
Don’t worry I still have lots of FM Love but: I got baited and switched and it hurt.
PS: Apple’s Mavericks OS is free and I have lots of Macs running it. Will Apple start asking $50 for the next update? I doubt it.
Peter – Curious? In your case, are the FMGo users also FMPro users? Does your customer prefer Annual or Volume licensing?
Thanks for your comments.
Kirk —
I know you’re looking for some ideas for the follow-up to this post…
Here’s a thought: Let’s get a conversation started about the “Price of Non-FileMaker 13.” By that, I mean the “cost” involved in using technologies other than FileMaker. And I’m not necessarily talking about cost in terms of dollars (although that is important). I’m talking about things that we tend to take for granted as FileMaker developers that are costly and that you don’t get “out of the box” with other technologies.
Maybe we need to take a step back and think about why we ever started to use FileMaker in the first place, and whether continuing to use it makes sense. In my case, I’ve come to the conclusion that betting my business and my career on the FileMaker platform makes perfect sense, and I’m excited to see what the brilliant minds at FileMaker Inc come up with next. It seems that with every new release, they empower me to do new things and make my job easier, and I appreciate that.
Anyway, food for thought – and maybe for further discussion.
— Tim
Tim, it is most excellent to see your thought in this conversation. Your feelings and many others of expressing patience with the pricing scheme and encouragement for Filemaker’s superior technology. My “gotcha” experience of supporting 20 iPads for free in FMS12 to paying $3,000 in FMS13 is too fresh to share your patience and encouragement. Frustrated and enraged better describe my feelings. Since you and other contributors, including the author, did not have a similar experience then it might be a bit difficult to really understand, but please try. Blowing kisses at FMI would probably not be your reaction.
—
Thanks,
Gene Velazquez
Gene —
I fully understand your frustration. I service over 50 clients, many of whom are using FileMaker Go in some capacity. So I saw firsthand how frustrating the change in FM 13’s licensing model was. In fact, I came down pretty hard on it myself back in December, when the full impact of those changes became clear.
My point in the previous reply was that FileMaker is a “superior technology” and we need to keep that in mind when we look at it in terms of pricing. We need to look at what we’re getting for that price, and also what our options are. How much would the solution that you described (the one that runs on 20 iPads) have cost had you developed it using some other technology? Could you have developed it as quickly as you did? Would you be able to continue to support it as easily as you can with FileMaker?
One last thing: I’m not “blowing kisses at FMI.” Again, go back and look at that post of mine from December and I think you’ll agree that I was actually somewhat critical (especially with regard to WebDirect). I don’t always agree with everything that they do or have done. But at the same time I appreciate the effort and creativity that the company puts into the platform. There is, as far as I can tell, nothing else quite like it.
— Tim
Tim – I think that is a great idea. What other technologies should be part of the discussion? Salesforce? Sencha? PhoneGap?
Although I have always been wary of smaller companies, the recent additions of industry heavyweights at Alpha Software (including Dan Bricklin, the original developer of Visi-calc) lend some credibility to what they are doing. Full HTML5 applications that has wizard driven integration with Phonegap Build allowing you to put your mobile apps on iOS, Android, and Windows Phone with a few mouse click including full access to native functionality of any of the devices. A developer can dive as deep as they want to, all HTML5, CSS, Javascript and AJAX capabilities can be accessed or most data needs can be accomplished by just making property selections.
SalesForce, and browser-based apps. PhoneGap maybe, but then you’re really focusing on the mobile end of things.
Oh, and don’t forget Access. I’m kidding! (Or am I?)
Add to the discussion that there two problems with the current version that may cause you to have more connections used than actual users.
First are Go users who drop connection to the server due wifi or cell connectivity issues and the immediately try to reconnect. We’ve had a single Go user consume six or seven concurrent connections due to connectivity problems. More than once two users exceeded our 11 connections.
Second issue is if your browser based WD clients are in a habit of opening multiple windows or tabs, each of those appear to be a separate concurrent connection.
We thought having 11 concurrent connections would more than meet our Go needs. Due to the connectivity issues causing use to exceed our concurrent connections we had to reevaluate this and are now considering using the free Go client and syncing
-Tim Ballering
Tim – That is an important issue. Have you contacted FileMaker tech support? If so, what was their answer?
Everyone here seems to take for granted that the unit cost of a FM Go connection is $180 (which was by the way converted into 180€ -no less than 1.4 time more expensive!)
But that is actually not true.
The customers who really matter about such licence fee are small workgoups, not enterprise level.
The reality for them is that their 1st connection is included in the server price, but their second (and sometimes the last one they need) is priced 900€.
That can be regarded as quite an expensive ‘free’ app!
Fabrice – I assume you arrived at the $900 price because FMGo connections are sold in 5-packs. I would like to see FileMaker Server come with 3 or even 5 concurrent connections out of the box, even if the price of server is a little higher. Thanks for stopping by.
I’m not a programmer, just a small business owner that depends upon a FM9 IWP-oriented database. My client base generally pays me $300-400/month for my consulting services. They don’t access the database very often via the web but the notion that I’m going to cough up 20+% of my revenue off the top is a mafia-like tactic. That’s NOT going to happen
I don’t think you can really compare the pricing of FMP and FM Go. You can’t develop on Go, share from Go, print from Go, etc. etc. You also have seriously limited screen realty and for many people typing on the iPad still isn’t as comfortable as a keyboard.
I think the current connection pricing model would make a lot more sense if there was a thin client for the desktop that used the same concurrent connection model. That way, you are paying $60 (annually ) plus the price for the thin client (free or fairly cheep ) for the user to connect at the desktop or from a mobile device , not paying $108 annually or $324 one-time to connect from a desktop and $60 annually to connect from a mobile device. Most users don’t need the development tools in FMP and I think a lot of traction could be made with a thin desktop client.
As far as comparing it to competitors, I would think something that would compete with a lot of solutions might be Basecamp? Basecamp is $240 annually for 10 projects and 3GB of storage space for project files. Unlimited users. That price scales as you go up in projects to a maximum of $3000 (although $1800 will already get you unlimited projects ). How much would it cost to develop something like Basecamp in Filemaker and then have to stick all the licensing fees (for the actual software and concurrent users) on top of that?
And with base camp, the customer is paying to connect to someone else’s server, not their own. With filemaker they have to pay for their own server hardware, server software, client software if they are connecting with a PC, development of a solution, and then they have to pay by user per year just to connect on an iPad if they want to.
Mobile filemaker solutions were cheep, now they aren’t. Clients are going to search for cheaper options and its very likely that more and more will show up that continue to fit more niches and offer increasing flexibility.
My two cents, Filemaker needs to offer a thin client for the desktop, add at least 5 free users to FMS, maybe trim the price back just a bit (although that becomes much less of an issue if they have a thin desktop client ), and most importantly scale pricing.
Depending on what you need WebDirect can stand in as the thin client on the desktop, but the lack of native printing, custom menus and a few other features won’t make it viable for many customers.
Thomas – Thanks for sharing your comments.
1. I like the idea of separating the development tools from the desktop client. In fact, I would like FileMaker Pro Advanced to be a free download to encourage young developers to try out the platform.
2. I do not think you can compare Basecamp to custom solutions. Basecamp has a very specific workflow and it will either work for your business or not. With FileMaker, you can model the application after your workflow. The value of a custom solution is much greater than a typical SaaS application.
Hi Kirk,
Thanks for the response.
@ 1. Yes!
@ 2. Well, I guess you would have to compare and contrast. While the two may not correlate perfectly, the value being offered by the pricing packages for concurrent connections with Filemaker Server, the connectivity with mobile devices and web browsers, seems to be comparable to me.
It doesn’t seem to justify the prices of concurrent connections when there are so many applications allow you to connect from any kind of device at “no additional cost”. I don’t thinks its “unfair”, but I also don’t think the perceived value of the specific service they are charging for will justify the cost for a lot of clients.
@”With FileMaker, you can model the application after your workflow.”
A discussion about how often the client actually has a well defined workflow would be interesting to me.
My understanding of consulting is that often workflow is part of what the consultant will help the client clearly define and streamline. I would be curious to hear how often Filemaker consultants help redefine work processes to make the most of what they can do in a Filemaker solution, and how often they have to model their solutions exactly after preexisting processes that may or may-not be optimized.
But that is a completely different topic.
As pleased as I am with the lineup of FileMaker products which allow me as a small-time developer to create solutions, I am disappointed with one aspect of the pricing structure for supporting WebDirect and Go clients. It isn’t the cost of the 5-pack itself (though it is pretty stiff for smaller organizations) so much as the bundled support out of the box for Server to support Go/WD clients.
The current 1-client license is enough for me as a developer to test my first WebDirect implementation to make sure I understand how I want to do it, but it is NOT sufficient for me to bring up the first prototype database that supports the first few evaluators on the client side to convince them to buy enough packs to support their application.
Asking them to cough up that money up-front before their own team even gets to try a prototype in a multi-user situation is asking too much, yet I as a small-time developer am reluctant to buy a 5-pack on my own dime “just in case” I need to demonstrate how Go or WD works in a multi-user environment to a client.
What I think FileMaker should do is to bundle a full 5-pack with Server. That would solve several problems. It would enable a Developer to fully demonstrate a prototype multi-user database with several clients without having to hassle with 5 packs until the application is ready to roll out. It would allow a small business or volunteer organization to function with a single small server with fixed costs (vital to such organizations, and a market FileMaker could probably not penetrate under the current pricing scheme). Finally, I think it would increase the number of FileMaker deployments in organizations overall, which can only benefit FileMaker in terms of visibility and credibility.
If a full 5-pack is not feasible then I think the absolute minimum should be a 3-pack bundled with Server, not just a single license. I do not believe a bundled 3-pack would significantly undermine FileMaker’s profit structure but would make a world of difference to developers like me, both in terms of what I can demonstrate to clients, and in terms of the possible market I could sell very small databases to.
Charles – I agree. I would like to see FileMaker Server ship with 3 to 5 concurrent licenses out of the box.
I have a wide customer base of small businesses that are typically starting with a 3- or 4-user set up. It is always their first experience of Filemaker. If all goes well, they say cautiously, “We’ll expand it, if…”. Thankfully, all has always gone well, so they have always expanded – usually doubled – their number of users. Until now. With versions up to 11 they could add the administrator, the deputy, the part-timer, the extra over-flow workstation, etc right up to 9 users, and they didn’t object *too* much to paying the FMPro licences. Now they quickly hit the point of 5 users, and now I have to tell them that all has changed and the next user will cost them over *One Thousand* of their English Pounds. And they stop dead. And they feel like *I* baited them. I would be happy if the FM Client could host 9 guests as before. In my business that would actually increase FMI’s revenue, as the customers who have stopped dead at that 5th user would happily pay for more. And the fact that yet again the file structure has been changed and is not backwards compatible adds to the feeling of being rail-roaded.
And while I’m on a rant (this fundamental pricing and structure change is a real upset to my business) I would beg FMI to stop pushing the naive idea that Filemaker databases ‘just work’ over all platforms. My customers read the FM website and declare to me that they now ‘just want’ their solutions to include access via iPad or browser. Never mind the cost of access; when I tell them that the database must be specifically written to accommodate the different screen sizes, the need to make fat-finger touch-accessible buttons, work-arounds for the script steps that don’t work on those platforms, blah, blah, they point at the web blurb and accuse me of being either incompetent, or a shyster, or both.
“Maybe FMI can use this discussion…”? Good luck with that one. I have never seen any indication that FMI read any forum, blog, website, feature-request list, or anything else customer-generated, even less acted upon it.
Alan – Thank you for you comments.
1. I have not run into an issue with the number of clients that can be hosted with FileMaker Pro because we recommend customers host their database in the cloud, unless they have an IT department.
2. I agree with you on the marketing of FileMaker Pro. It does make it sound too easy and can lead to unrealistic customer expectations.
3. I know FMI reads this blog. I got a personal email in response to this article.
Thanks for the response, Kirk. One of the reasons our customers prefer our solution is because we are one of the few who offer a totally in-(their)-house solution – they are not dependent on an internet connections speed or reliability. Our last customer specifically changed to us for that reason. Some of our customers effectively are only a bit above dial-up speed.
The email response you were privileged to receive – did it tell you anything about up-coming features, or bug-fixes, or any explanation of why they did something, or aren’t doing something, or if they had any plans to change the pricing structure, or the limit of hosting with Client, or anything that wasn’t actually just platitudes?
I’ve never had any response that wasn’t absolute stone-wall, including the repeated “Because that’s The Rule”.
Thanks for the discussion!
This hits close to home but there is one little thing that has been overlooked in my opinion. Maybe it deserves a different topic/article but this is where I find myself.
Beginning with FM10 and the newer CWP and IWP that server brought to the table there has been a consistent and nagging series of problems with FM Server.
I see a myriad of comments, discussions, solutions, etc. from the developer community but not once, NEVER, has FM addressed the issue in a forthright way except afer multiple confirmations of problems to say “this isn’t working in this version.” Every time a new version came out I was hopeful Server would be solid. No joy yet. So besides the impact of increased costs for small workgroups the server version hiccups are killing the usefulness to me as a developer. I can not possibly understand how hosting solutions are managing. And like others here the “all in house” is the only solution for the sensitive data. I used to be able to bring in a device and limited customized software for roughly $5k. Now there seems to be a $10k lower limit on fixed pricing with annual pricing roughly half that. I hasten to add that just because the cost has gone up it doesn’t mean I’m making more money per install. Enough ranting. Thanks for listening.
I am also a small business user who developed his own in house solution. For several reasons it involves more than 1 FM solution, and every user usually has 4 or 5 open at one time. This makes Web Direct an insanely expensive solution for me (5 browser tabs @ 180 per seat = $ 900.- per seat). If the concurrent connections were calculated on a per device basis, it would be viable for me, and I would most probably upgrade. Meanwhile I will stay with v 11, works fine and serves my needs. (Current deployment is FMS on a Win 7 Proffesional machine + 7 LAN FM Pro + 2 WAN FM Pro + occassional WAN connects from Laptops or iPads).