Open Letter to Claris: Bring back Runtimes now or we will lose developers

Claris
, ,
1

I know, the discussion about runtimes may seem completely outdated, but in light of the latest technical developments, I'm coming back to it once again (probably for the very last time) so that Claris might reconsider it’s decision.

My Status Quo

I have a 4 digit number of customers using a FileMaker Runtime that was last built with FileMaker 18. As we all know, that was the final version supporting runtimes. Technically, everything is based on an outdated foundation – not optimized for Apple Silicon.

Starting next year, Apple will no longer ship Rosetta 2. That means our existing runtimes simply won’t run on newer Macs.

So I’m currently facing a decision:

  • Move to FileMaker SBA → massive price increase for my customers

  • Or rebuild my product from scratch

Experimenting with Claude Code and Swift

Inspired by a thread in the German FileMaker Magazine, I started experimenting with Claude Code – and I’m genuinely amazed by the results.

I’m converting my runtime into a native Swift macOS app with the help of Claude Code. And it works – surprisingly well.

The starting point was a DDR of my solution, followed by splitting the DDR into many small XML files using the MBS Plugin (google “MBS Split DDR”). I don’t understand Swift at all, yet the generated code works flawlessly. Smaller issues or change requests can be handled with simple prompts in Claude Code. If everything continues like this, I see no reason why I shouldn't switch to a native macOS app.

In other words: it has never been easier to migrate away from FileMaker! That should set off alarm bells at Claris!

Why Runtimes were important – and still are

I know the runtime discussion is old, and for many it’s a dead horse that shouldn’t be beaten anymore. But there are still very good reasons why runtimes matter:

  • No recurring license costs

  • Ideal for demo versions

  • Full branding without “FileMaker Pro”

  • Perfect for small, clearly defined solutions

  • Ideal for vertical solutions with many installations

  • Extremely simple distribution

  • Possible distribution via the macOS App Store

  • No psychological barrier for new customers

  • A stepping stone toward real FileMaker licenses in multi-user scenarios

For my target audience, SBA licenses are simply not a viable alternative.

Why Claris Must Act Now

The market has changed. With AI tools, it’s now realistic to rebuild a FileMaker solution as a native app in a relatively short time.

At the same time, there is a growing number of no-code and low-code platforms competing with FileMaker, which increasingly risks being perceived as a dinosaur.

If Claris does not bring back runtimes – in whatever form – many developers will turn their backs on FileMaker.

That would be a massive missed opportunity.

The Opportunity for Claris

Runtimes are not a step backward. They are a strategic addition:

  • Entry point for new developers

  • Incubator for small products that can grow much larger

  • A way to keep many small vendors within the ecosystem

  • Revenue from a market segment that would otherwise disappear

  • Access to new target groups by positioning Claris as the low-code platform for database-driven, cross-platform apps (also for the App Store)

  • Revenue through volume instead of high-priced licenses

  • Presumably little effort for Claris, as existing FileMaker apps only need to be limited in terms of their capabilities (Layout Mode, Network).

Claris is currently positioning itself strongly in the enterprise space. That’s legitimate. But FileMaker has always also been the platform for solo developers and vertical solutions. If this audience disappears, FileMaker loses part of its DNA.

Unfortunately, Claris’ current pricing policy also contributes to discouraging new developers.

Conclusion

An affordable runtime option and reasonably priced licenses would send a strong signal to the community. It would create new opportunities and revenue streams – both for us developers and for Claris.

Otherwise, 2026 may become the year when many developers turn their backs on FileMaker. And that would be a real shame.

What are your thoughts about this?

Disclaimer: This thread was written with the help of AI, as I am not a native speaker, but the thoughts reflect my opinion 100%.

3 Likes
2

Requiring FileMaker to run a FileMaker app means I rarely, if ever, use FileMaker for production work. When you add Claris’ draconian licensing restrictions ($$$) for FMS, I never, ever, use FMS for production work.

1 Like
3

Well Thomas, this is sad for you, but Claris doesn't want Runtimes to exist.
They would like you to do SBA and sell FileMaker licenses with your solution.

Runtimes where deprecated with FileMaker 14 in May 2015.
They were removed it in FileMaker 19 in May 2020.

Claris expected you to move some customers over time to SBA. With SBA you could get the licenses for about half the price and you could host multiple clients on the same server, so you could offer to support iPad and Web Direct to your clients.

The runtimes may continue to run for some time, but you may tell your clients, that eventually they may need to move to the SBA offering from you.

4

SBA (according to Claris website) licenses are at 50% for FBA partners - still somewhat expensive, a single lic is about 790 CHF, 50% would 395.-/lic.

The solution has to be approved by Claris and afaik there are no updates and no downgrades

afaik, there is one SBA per app - You can not have different apps under one SBA. Here, the missing downgrade was more problematic.

Anyway - sounds good for several use-cases

https://support.claris.com/servlet/fileField?entityId=ka10H000000oNza&field=Public_File_2__Body__s

5

This isn't a hurdle.

Because FileMaker has no hurdle to entry it is possible for people with very little programming or software development experience to make an application.

We have all seen FileMaker files that are highly functional but they are not a professional standard.

They expect your app to look professional, appropriate to the audience, and that is about all.

They expect it to behave like any commercial software, for instance, they expect the navigation buttons to be in the same place on every layout (no jumping). They expect all the content to be functional, for example, buttons that a user can touch shouldn't have "Script Missing", layouts that a user can see shouldn't have "Field Missing."

The requirements that they put in place are things that any business would have on their to-do list as they prepare to launch a piece of software.

2 Likes
6

All true! (But with Runtimes, there is nothing like that)

I believe that prices are better the more licenses one sells

7

There appears to be an inverse relationship between “friendly software” and the leverage companies gain to keep jacking up prices and restricting a program’s use to force more and more profits over what users need and often want.

1 Like
8

FileMaker Go is free and iPad’s pretty affordable and couldn’t that replace RUN-TIME?

(I know it is far fetched ..)

9

Well, some people have used the FileMaker iOS SDK for this.

The SDK allows you to make an app, that runs on iPad, iPhone, Mac and Vision OS.
And it doesn't necessarily need a license for FileMaker unless you connect to a server.

And of course we hoped to get FileMaker Pro in some way into the App Store as a free app. So people could use it to learn FileMaker, try samples and later decide when they need a license.

3 Likes
10

I wouldn’t mind runtimes for simpler and cleaner distribution, but FWIW none of my clients bat an eye on the price of the licenses or servers. I wouldn’t be focusing on it as a cost-savings method. You could use web publishing possibly to solve your problems.

11

When you say “some people have used the FIlemaker iOS SDK for this” what do you mean? Can it spin up a “Filemaker” runtime, or can you just make an app and continue to use Filemaker as your backend Database?

12

Well, you can use the FileMaker iOS SDK to make yourself a branded version of FileMaker Go.

You need Xcode and an Apple Developer subscription. Then you can make your own application. Your name, your icon, your start database.

Several Claris customers do that for a branded experience with their own app.

And this app runs on iOS with iPhone, iPad, Mac (with Apple Silicon) and Vision Pro.

2 Likes
13

@MonkeybreadSoftware That's not a bad idea in principle, but I suspect that an iOS app would have various limitations. For example, it wouldn't be possible to open temporary off-screen windows (a technique I use quite often) or multiple windows at all. The same applies to the limited page view mode.

I am well aware that I am raising a very old issue here, one that was actually decided long ago. But until now, I simply saw no need to take action, even after about eight years or so. In view of current developments, I wonder whether a runtime might not be a good addition to the Claris portfolio after all, in order to make FileMaker more attractive again in the face of competition. I have already described the benefits for us and Claris in detail.

In any case, I believe that Claris is fundamentally pursuing the wrong strategy by focusing exclusively on the high-priced business customer sector. The high entry prices nip new developers in the bud. Only affordable entry-level options will attract new developers. And single-user customers will then become the business customers of tomorrow.

If FileMaker had cost this much in the 1990s, I would never have ended up using FileMaker. Today, I earn my living with a FileMaker (Runtime) solution and numerous customers. I would have no problem with Claris also profiting from this, but of course everything should be within economically reasonable limits. Unfortunately, SBA licences do not meet these criteria. I therefore call on Claris to reconsider its Runtime strategy, as well as the pricing strategy. Otherwise I predict a dark future for FileMaker.

2 Likes
14

Thanks, I don’t have a use for that right now, but definitely a cool idea.

15

Potential option:

Another Alternative with native LiveCode as one of the targets

And a potential future possibility, at least for MacOS; the ability to run iOS applications natively on Apple Silicon. Whether Claris opts to allow FMGo code to run on MacOS, is a potential path, albeit unlikely, but technically doable

There is also the [relatively] new Claris FM 3 user, 3 file, single server license.

16

5 or 6 years ago, FMI - or Claris - had a project with LiveCode (the company). That was to make available FileMaker apps on Android. Before the project was delivered FMI said they call the project quit.

Claris always said the run-time was a thing of the past, that it will never come back. Could they change their mind, maybe. But I would not hold my breath.

Regarding FileMaker Server one may rent a server from hosting companies, that takes care of the server. But customers would still need to buy FileMaker Pro to access the data, and unless I am wrong, one can't buy just FileMaker Pro. So the problem remains.

One thing should be understood : in IT there is no good cheap solution, you pay less you get less.

For sure, the run-time was the perfect solution for people who do not have the staff to maintain client and server software in their place.

Today to run a business, computers are needed, as well as a phone system and high speed Internet. The supplier incurs the cost of the IT stuff that is paid by their customers. If a customer is not ready to spend the price for your services, it's too bad.

There is another solution, it is to use FMBetterForms, see :

Build FileMaker powered web apps

FileMaker apps are accessible in a browser, much better than what Claris provides with WebDirect. That can be a very good solution. The Developer used FMBetterForms to create the interface and that company hosts the dev solution.

17

Single FM licenses are available at almost 2/3rd the price of a 5 user/3 server license.

LiveCode for FM and BetterForms, at the architecture level, are very similar; they use the data api to communicate with the server. For whatever reason, Claris allows BetterForms access with no license fees per seat, yet will not allow LiveCode for FM, the same provision, for reasons unknown

BetterForms requires a live (tethered) connection to a server; LC4FM provides untethered operation with sync on reconnect.

Not to be confused with LiveCode (now LiveCode Create, their AI driven development environment), LC4FM transcodes FileMaker in LiveCode with some license cost stacked on top of Claris license costs. The built in SQLlite helps.

And if you want to develop/update your FM code, check out fmdojo.com, an AI tool specific to FileMaker

18

Two things here:

  1. One can purchase FileMaker Pro on its own. It’s not all that cost effective when compared to other options.. A 5-user annual license for server and clients costs less than twice the cost than a standalone FileMaker Pro.
  2. fmcloud.fm offers a Personal plan for $29 USD / $44 CAD / 32€ per person per month that includes both server and client.

Hope this helps!

19

My price comparison earlier was not really an apples to apples comparison. The Single user FMP $625 USD license is perpetual; the 5 user/3 server perpetual license is $3,120 USD currently.

Sorry if this added confusion

20

It’s preposterous that a measly 5-user license is over $3,000! And that’s not even random connections.

No thanks Claris!