Cost are OK if quality matches and established features not pruned. “Cloud first” sounds like “America 1st” which could be perceived as a more radical emphasis and cloud exclusivity sooner then later ?
Exactly.
As established earlier, that’s not the case. It feels like you are making assumptions from a long way away from the source. I get it, I truly understand the reason for the feeling. Technology trends ebb and flow with changing business needs. Cloud services certainly have a tremendous benefit, but Claris does understand that not everyone has the same needs. We are in that same boat. Why I am I more positive about it? Because I have talked to the people. My boss had a personal conversation with the VP of Product Management and Design. Their vision is clear. My hope is that they can continue to educate and spread the message, so many not as close to the source can feel it too.
They are obviously prioritizing on cloud. This is how I read it. They also tighten up on resources by pruning features. Depreciation of P2P and referring to cloud as a substitute for example feeds my suspicion…
Deprecating P2P is what it is. As a person who came from that world, it’s still a welcome change, because you get FMS for roughly the same cost.
The Cloud first message is the future of the company. Maybe it’s different elsewhere, but cloud based services have gained a lot of traction. In order to remain relevant in the tech industry, it’s absolutely necessary. So it’s not really a surprise to me.
I agree.
I have to write it again: there are situations where a cloud does not fit - as least as long as the cloud is in a foreign country
We have customers with 2 clients, small business - quite a few…
And don’t forget that fmc will follow the update-cycle without letting users the choice to stay on a version, ie if some of the hardware/system is not capable of running that version. This can be the case when the software that is needed for the business needs an older os, (CAD system, financial sw, etc.)
A 5-users license (buy) is here about 3’400.-, compared to about 2’050 for 3 clients or 2 clients for about 1’350.-
If a business solution platform provider is serious about a strategy, it is published in writing for their customer’s reference. All that has been published and said by now is ‘cloud’. Customers here are not gadget buyers but businesses. A committed strategy and a stable product for business customers cannot be replaced by some fancy marketing noise. It can also not be replaced by telling stuff to selected people from selected customers.
Let the source be with you.
There is nothing wrong with the subscription model. But getting money each year also means listening to customers and deliver what is asked for.
Late to this one, but Markus has hit the nail on the head as far as we are concerned with the update-cycle.
First, we are huge fans of the subscription model as our business was built around this when we first started hosting 8-years ago and Josh is dead on with his description of revenue streams. FileMaker made it much more difficult for us with the revised hosting EULA as I’ve posted many times, but we struggle on as the square pegs Markus described on another post (actually, we’ve had a record year).
However, of everything, the forced update and lack of responsibility for the impact of this is why we use our own cloud servers. We build links into other systems that requires control not only over the version of FileMaker, but also the operating system, and complementary software.
Maybe when Claris Connect is fully up and running and we have tools to hand that will make the operating system less important, then we’ll take a different approach. Or do something else.
But it is this lack of continuity, push for constant upgrades and the lack of personal support that prevents us currently investing in FMC. It wasn’t long ago that someone from Brazil asked for support after an enforced FMC update that trashed their system and received a message that it was a public holiday in the US and nobody was available to help until after that. I can just imagine how our customers would have reacted to that.
1 Like
Well, I guess that is why most “cloud services” are browser based. Most often you don’t run into that issue as much. The big game changer with FileMaker, is the power to do stuff the browser just can’t.
And the location of the Cloud servers are a major factor.
1 Like
Even then Josh, as browser technology changes and the vendors decide to deprecate features, there’s no guarantee any system won’t break due to things outside of the users’ control.
We really liked the AWS EC2 service and control of, but the best you can hope for with support is to luck into a forum where someone has had the same problem and a solution. Not great in a crisis.
for what it is worth - here is a link to AWS reviews/ratings for the 5-users FMC package. I was quite shocked as I clicked on the link
https://aws.amazon.com/marketplace/reviews/reviews-list/B01IJ5EEEA
Yes, there are good ratings - mostly from filemaker cracks (well known people)
Filemaker will update the fmc yearly as well AFAIB. So, if You got a CAD/CAM/GIS (or whatever other software that one really needs) that needs a 10.12, You might find Yourself out of luck
I agree. That is one of the main reasons I don’t think comparing FileMaker to other single purposes services is a fair comparison. We have to sell the strength of FileMaker, not sell against the strength of other’s platforms.
1 Like
The thing is that the market is constantly changing.
Now most organisations have some form of system (not all I know) and we’re rarely replacing Excel spreadsheets we’re going up against more and more specialist software targeting a specific vertical market.
A broad ‘we can do most things’ doesn’t hack it anymore. Clear and identifiable targets will be the future (IMHO) and the less flexibility we have the less likely we are going to compete.
This is our strategy and, I have to say it, we’ve been hindered more than helped.
2 Likes
In my experience, those vertical market software services have defined and glaring flaws. Generalist companies, unless you are already huge, doesn’t cut it.
Identify the problems people have with that software. Show them how you can provide something better, or bridge the gap between what they have and what they need.
Sorry to disagree, but that is not what we are seeing. Hosted solutions, very cost effective, aimed at a specific market with the offer of flexible customisation.
It is exactly what we’d like to be doing with FileMaker.
I have been on the user end of many of those “customizable” products. They are often terrible from a user experience. Look beyond the marketing brochure. There are gaps. Sometimes, major gaps.