It's just math. If you have 15 users, then a team license makes more sense there. If you have 27 users, and only 5 at a time need to be in FileMaker...the concurrent license makes sense. This all depends on what you are using it for. And it can't be analyzed in a vacuum.
1 Like
It's simple, really.
5 connections (since that's the lowest, given the pricing) to be shared by different users in my applications users setup. Different users for different applications. No mystery. No vacuum. No $2,700. 
How much more would a perpetual license be on top of the concurrent license? Another $2,700?
Perpetual license is completely different thing, since it's a one time purchase. I don't know the current numbers on that one... And it would be in place of, not in addition to.
OK. Thanks
I thought we had covered that extensively in the other thread...
You can have one or the other, your choice. If you don't want to license your whole team then don't. Unless you happen to be just at that cross-over point where the price would be the same.
It's something like 15 per user and per month.
So renting 5 user license is 15 * 12 * 5 = 900 USD.
Buying a perpetual license is about 3 times more expensive, so 900 * 3 = 2700
And 1 connection cost 3 users, so 5 connections should be 15 * 10 * 5 * 3 * 3 = 6750 USD.
1 Like
Thanks Christian. You’re more responsive with clearer explanations than FMI sales itself. 
1 Like
My main use is as an in-house developer. We have a 25 "user" licence (not for teams) which allows 25 connections and/or 25 instances of FileMaker Pro and/or FileMaker Server etc. We run a production sever on a dedicated in-house Windows Server and a devs sever on AWS.
For any other stuff I do privately I run the FDS server on AWS.
I have set up in-house MacMini Servers using FileMaker for Teams for small companies.
I consider a FileMaker Server to be an essential part of a FileMaker deployment. Am planning to suggests clients use FileMaker Cloud in future. But an on-prem server is preferred by some companies which is fine too.
EDIT: I use FDS for testing only
1 Like
Thanks Ben.
A couple follow ups.
You mentioned you use "FDS" for stuff you do "privately", but isn't FDS only licensed for "testing"? I'm assuming you mean you use FDS as part of development and testing only? FDS is how I ran FMS previously, but found it too limiting given the license agreement allowances for extended multi-week client testing as one example.
FileMaker Cloud does not support JDBC as one problem area for me so I could never consider it on that alone. As I recall, there were other things Cloud didn't do relative to, say, an AWS install.
Thanks,
I don't have the exact wording, but the answer is yes.
https://community.claris.com/en/s/article/about-the-filemaker-developer-subscription
FileMaker Pro can be used either online (connected to FileMaker Server) or offline, however FileMaker Pro may only be used for testing purposes.
The FileMaker Server license may only be used for development and testing purposes.
This is the relevant part of the license. There is a FAQ that is worded differently, but that is not part of the license.
There are plans for this to change at some point. But no details are available at this point.
I was given a quote by Sales today:
5 users.
- Concurrent Connections.... PLUS....
- Perpetual.
$8,100.
1 Like
Sell your house 
3 Likes
3 x $ 2,700.00. An incentive to use the rent model ? Named users vs concurrent connections. Maintenance is also available for permanent licenses.
Comparisons not to be limited to the price, the two choices are different.
1 Like
Best laugh I've had in several days. Thanks!
Now calculate the ROI. The longer you use that, the more ROI there will be. There is a pain-point to get a perpetual license. But you can now keep current for $1680/year. Depending on the number of users, and the benefits it brings to the company... it may be worth it.
If $8,100 did break the project, there is no way they could afford the development necessary.
I choose "C". (neither A nor B).
Maybe check current prices as of Fri June 19, 2020. Seems to be significantly higher now showing at the Claris site.
Yes $8,100 for only 5 users with concurrent connections and perpetual.
That would be correct.
5-users 'for teams' = $900 /year
to switch to perpetual = x 3 = $2700
to switch to concurrent = x 3 = $8100
We personally never see people buy into this model. %99 of the clients go for the maintenance model and for the teams model. We do once in a while consider the concurrency model if their 'online' number is less than 1/3rd of their team size.
But we never consider perpetual and the clients don't ask for it, most of them will use FM for more than 2 or 3 years which makes the maintenance model very appealing.
If that particular team has less than 15 people then it would be same or cheaper to just license everyone.
If a company doesn't want to rent software on principle then they have to put their money where their mouth is, I guess. Also this would be the initial outlay only, if their intention is to ever-green their deployments their next purchases would be upgrades, not full list price. So realistically you wouldn't compare $900 to $8100, you'd have to pick the expected timeframe and look at the overall cost.
I believe Soliant has a blog post that describes that in a lot of detail, it's probably a few years old and the models have change a bit, but the thought process for the comparison would still apply
2 Likes