Runtimes are deprecated in filemaker pro 17 advanced free
All postings and use of читать content on this site are subject to the Claris Community Use Agreement.
[Runtimes are deprecated in filemaker pro 17 advanced free
The sad part is, the message need not be there.
Deployment in 17 – iOS App SDK
WebDirect can do neither, unless they have substantially improved it in V The PDF support in previous versions was very poor. I could never get barcode fonts to work, so barcode labels were right out. And there was no way to insert images from a folder. Also many scripting functions were missing that I relied upon. If I have to do custom app development, I have no reason to touch FileMaker for these use cases. FileMaker made this use case super easy.
Ever since Claris removed networking from their runtime sometime around FM 4. Many FM features never made it into the runtime version over the years. Perhaps a Volume License Agreement would be a good fit for your organization to keep the overall cost down. We can help you with that if needed. Web is also not acceptable. Webdirect would imply in extreme cost raising for my customeres and , again, not acceptable.
I would never, ever make them have a nonsense extra cost. If you want to build a software product that has YOUR branding on it and that you can sell indepentant of license fees and other financial restrictions then choose a different platform it’s really that simple but saying that FM is too expensive for what it’s capable of and all the support that comes with it behind it is ridiculous.
It may sound “snobbish”, and reading text, it may feel that way. But I know Lemmtech doesn’t mean any harm. So I can reassure you in that regard.
It is true, there are scenarios where FM isn’t the best fit. Those cases, you use the tool that is best for the job. Is this your experience? I’d like to know more about the circumstances that lead to that. Overall, FileMaker hasn’t raised the actual cost of the product in a few version now. There would be some added expense because of the difference between Concurrent Connections and Team licensing and User Licensing. Maybe you were just using hyperbole, but I wanted to verify. How many users are in your contract?
How many overall employees do you have? From that, maybe we can work through an option to show it may be less expensive than expected. From there talking to a sales rep is important. I love reading this story.
FMI should interview you at DevCon. Lemmtech, I do appreciate your snobbish approach to companies or developers that cannot afford what you and your clients have clearly no problems to pay for. Differences make life richer and our divergent points of view are a good thing. However, you could may be concede that a company which rises the price of a service by 7 or more times over the night can create some problem to the trampiest users I’m one of them of that service.
Note that these users were not using a deprecated feature nor acting in any way that the Company would consider unfair at the moment. Of course, a company can do whatever it wants with his own things. I think it’s good to be clear on distingishing the cost of third party cloud hosting services versus the cost of FileMaker itself and your issues seems to be with the cost of hosting. Was this a big jump? Yes it was but FileMaker just stopped shared hosted which was never their intention in the first place they don’t set hosting rates.
Becasue of this increased cost I pulled some of my clients back to local hosting since I generally don’t like cloud hosting anyway. FileMaker had a number of loopholes like RT and shared hosting that allowed people to get into the platform cheaply by exploiting loopholes in their technology and EULA that they are now shutting down.
While I can appreciate people being upset that their nearly free rides are coming to an end that is just life get over it. None of this should come as a surprise to anyone that did their homework on whether or not to adopt FileMaker as their platform of choice in the first place. Either FileMaker is worth the value it’s delivering to your oganization or it’s not.
If it’s not then find something else you feel is a better value and go with that. I am not trying to be snobbish, rude, arogant or anything else negative just brutally honestly about this issue. If you or others are offended by that approach I do apologize but to do otherwise I think would do disservice to both you and the FM platform. I understand what you mean. Thanks for the clarification.
There are even some companies like Soliant that will even manage that hosting for you if you want. It may never be as inexpensive as it was, but you may be able to get the costs down some. Sure enough. Doesn’t mean those who have loyally invested nearly twenty years of work exclusively with FM have to be happy with some FMI corporate decisions.
Royalty-free runtimes – that is one of the reasons I chose to go with FileMaker in the first place, so I could in part develop skills and help persons who had modest means.
Started with FM in late ‘s with Claris v3. A version of the following statement is in every developer manual I have looked at including FM Dev 5. FMI most certainly has encouraged and advertised royalty-free runtimes. IMO, a shrewd business model; one that encourages new business start-ups. Some of those start-ups can become larger operations, requiring more capability, which means more FM sales. And so on. Loyalty matters. Two of the rules I live by, and will continue to live by.
What’s next? Take responsibility, re-evaluate, and adjust course. Don’t repeat mistakes. Runtimes are were great and will be an opportunity cost for FMI once no longer available. I’m sure there are many cases where a customer started with a small cheap runtime app, then upgraded to FMP paid license to be able to customise the app, then bought another license to share with other users peer to peer, and ended up getting an FMS license.
Having the option of a gradual approach is beneficial in many cases, and runtimes are the first link in the chain that can lead the customer to buy FMS in the mid-term. Maybe there are also cases where customers stick to a runtime for ever and never end up buying an FMP license. But that would be the case of solutions that don’t grow over time In any case, for every runtime not targeted for the vertical market there is a FileMaker Developer behind, willing to do more work for the client, and pushing the client to buy FMP, for the simple reason that doing development on a runtime is a pain I remember I had to open the file with I believe a “.
I never did development on runtimes, I just told the customer that if needed changes they had to buy an FMPA license, and that it would be cheaper for them than me taking the time of “undoing the runtime”, making the changes, and then creating the runtime again every time they needed to add new features or fix a bug.
In any case, even though still available, runtimes are already useless to me because I use the native JSON functions everywhere , specially to pass script parameters. Also I believe card windows and insert from url with cURL options are not available in runtimes, so for me runtimes are a thing of the past, unfortunately. InspectorPro is one of the more famous and useful examples of why we would still want runtime.
Speaking of little fish, I started and piloted using fully functional day trials of FileMaker 4—with peer networking. The customer went into production buying nothing but Pro, serving up to the maximum number peer networking would allow.
That customer now maintains over licenses and multiple servers. But if FileMaker had said things like, “If you have to ask how much it costs, then you can’t afford it—buy Server if you want to share,” then that customer never would have bought a single license. After many years since FM6 developing my solutions with FileMaker Pro and providing thousands of licences via SBA, for a now mature, popular and successful solution aimed at the “small fish” the dropping of peer 2 peer for testing only now , deprecation of runtime and the licence model being constantly changed I think you are right.
FileMaker is no longer the right platform for application development. Sadly, it was for many years, hence our investment in the platform To be honest, it started feeling like I was a subcontractor for FileMaker and not my own company, with everything being dictated to us You MUST use the very latest version, you can’t run it on x platform anymore, you can’t use peer to peer anymore, this feature is being removed, that is being remove, you must buy maintenance, etc etc.
So that’s it for us, with FileMaker at least. Not one single licence of FileMaker will be purchased by us from this point forward. It no longer offers us what we need and what it does offer does not allow us to remain competitive but also adds a lot of complexity for our current user base. I have to agree with your assessment. I started using FileMaker Pro in version 3. It was a two person office, peer to peer networking. Peer to Peer between me assistant controller , payroll clerk and HR clerk.
When the HR Director and the Controller said they needed access they really didn’t I was able to set them up to view the information via a browser. They did not use their access more than a time or two. I used FileMaker Pro to develop a run-time application for a task at my next company. It was a simple end of day process to pre-process the AP Edit listings to meaningful data.
The run-time lead to me purchasing to licenses. In my current situation, I develop a run-time for me to use for a some tasks, supplemental to the accounting software.
It demonstrated to the Accounting Manager, that I should have a the full program in the Office. The next year we purchased two FMP15 Advanced. Peer-to-Peer networking worked, until we outgrew it. This year, now that FileMaker has shown to be a great tool to complement the accounting software, we have gone with FMS17 and five licenses. FileMaker use to market from small to large. That is not what they want, the large only.
A thin-desktop client was the topic of wish-lists, to complement the thin-client of iOS iPhone or iPad. Then WebDirect was more fully developed and seemed to be a possible thin-desktop client. But the marketing strategy is making that price prohibited. I had hopes of taking apps I had developed over the years to make them commercial products. But I can see I will have to develop on a different platform, because my target audience is the one or two years per site.
I shared my customer perception, as seen from V3 to V With FMP17, there is not basic program I want to sell a single user my product; there is only Advanced. Whether it is turned on or not, if factor single license or even two licenses to my product, it is for Advanced whether that customer will use FileMaker for more than my application.
THAT is pricing to discourage the small customer. This is not true. None of these facts make them “want to be Oracle” or makes their platform expensive relative to the competition. Yes peer to peer runtime etc..
At one time it was suited for creating solutions for indivdiuals but they have moved on and the writing has been on the wall about this for some time. It’s business class sofware and really always has been they have just been alinging their pricing and policies over the past few years to reflect that. I respect that this change will leave some people behind but it’s the right business decision for them just as it may be the right business decision for the runtime and peer to peer crowd to find a more suitable platform for their products that caters to that audience.
There are a LOT more tools available today then when FileMaker came out with run times and peer to peer almost 30 years ago so they should be fine in the long run. While it’s truly more server-centric, as far as I know “peer-to-peer” is still available:. Six concurrent users on a match still seems adequate to get a foothold. I keep wishing that FileMaker Go would support “Peer-to-peer sharing”, not just with a desktop, but with other iOS devices. Imagine the countless uses of being able to share data directly from one FileMaker Go devices to another—without a server or even wi-fi.
Of course, if they want FileMaker Go to be the life of the party, FileMaker Go would have to go to allowing 9 concurrent connections to qualify for most party games. Anyway, if you want something to be viral, then it should be something small, shareable, and easy to contract—like a virus. With FMP12 what also dropped was the functionality of the desktop version to share via a browser. With V12, only FMS can be accessed with a browser.
My supposition is that the longer strategy of FileMaker Pro is driven by the parent company for sales of iPhones and iPads. There is NO charge for the client software for these devices. All of the emails that come to me, are targeting development on an iOS device. I have considered developing my product for an iPad. And may still do that.
The cost to my “customer” would be my price and his purchase of an iPad. I am waiting to see if the iOS client being required to use databases on a server only.
It is, according to all of their blurb yes. I find that quite funny actually. I would consider that as misrepresenting their product. So, here I am, an SBA member who sells and maintains thousands of FileMaker Pro licences and makes use of peer to peer networking, suddenly, without any real notice its not deprecated unable to actually provide those to my customer.
Not because of the feature itself. Would you buy a product for use within a business which pops up and says ” Fine, the connection is not encrypted, not that there is a way to resolve that without buying server And believe me, I have tried to convince the powers that be that ‘such wording was not necessary, simply leaving it as “the connection is not encrypted” was sufficient, but to no avail.
It would seem that iOS is the platform for single user use moving forward and not the desktop which may be an option for some developers of runtime or peer to peer but I suspect not all.
For desktop users they are clearly pushing FMS and a 5 user minimum which I can understand. Peer to Peer Sharing – ideas so its not just for “testing purposes only”. Yes, it’s transparently hypocritical that FileMaker for iOS and computers do not share as much of the same strategy as possible. Sadly, that was a last attempt after about a year of attempting to get to speak to somebody who knew anything about the product and almost begging to be able to continue to purchase licences from them.
I can’t see it going anywhere or being considered, its already been completely shot down, even though I was only referring to the “testing purposes only” part of the message and not the “not encrypted” part.
Certainly their mobile strategy with Go is to sell as many Apple devices as possible and who could blame them but their overall sales are much larger I believe on Windows desktops than on any Apple products but the profit margin on an iOS device is much larger than single license of FM. FMI has a large and diverse user population to satisfy and unfortunatley that means not everyone will benefit from their business decsions about the platform and where they are headed.
Hey, FMI, “You’re advancing the wrong way! Retreat backwards! We need to quit retreating from peer-to-peer sharing and start advancing in the opposite direction. I agree with you that FileMaker needs to make application deployment available via a standalone runtime. Back in FM Pro 12 I used to deploy single user apps that way.
Right now I have a need to do that for a database of archived data that only one person in the company needs to use. FileMaker’s licensing has gotten more onerous over that last few years and is pushing me to consider moving development away from FileMaker.
At some point I will start all new development on a different platform and begin migration of our mission critical database away from FileMaker. With 50 users the cost has now gotten out of hand. When I could just use concurrent users I could make this work. But under the new license schemes the cost is way out of line. I can’t comment on your solution but I think most people are getting at least 36 cents a day less if you sign a multi year contract worth of value per person out of the platform.
What’s more “in line” 20 cents a day per user? I admit I am not aware what other platforms cost but that doesn’t seem that out of line given what FM is capable of versus other platforms.
That includes unlimited concurrent users. The remainder are running FMPro versions 13 or Beyond FM Pro 14 you are not allowed to deploy on a shared server and the licensing has changed for concurrent users. First FileMaker went to concurrent users which maybe works because all employees are not logged in at the same time and now FileMaker is on a unique user model which requires a license for every employee whether logged in to the server or not.
I either have to stay back level on a shared server or go to a dedicated server. This does not count moving users to new client hardware in order to run the latest level of FMGO or upgrade costs to move users from FMPro 13 and 14 to clients that can use FM Server I may be stuck with FileMaker over the short term, but as they deprecate the clients supported and as they no longer support cost effective shared servers it makes it difficult for my clients to accept the value proposition.
Just to be clear: FMI offers two licensing models: ‘user’ and ‘concurrent’. So the concurrency model is still very much alive. And if you have more than 25 users to license either way, it’s worth having a chat with an FMI sales rep about a site license.
We can’t really comment on the value proposition of your solution obviously, not knowing what it does, what value it brings and how much you charge. We only know the cost-side of the equation. But you are correct: the value proposition is the decider to go with a for-pay platform as the foundation of your solutions or not. We have a site license with maintenance for well over 50 users. We just renewed our annual maintenance for 3 years. Because each user license includes the the whole platform excluding FileMaker Cloud there is only the hardware side to deal with.
So there was great value proposition there. Talk to a sales rep. See what they can do. With all due respect to you and everyone else that took advantage of shared hosting this service was a legal loophole exploited by third party cloud providers it was never a deployment method promoted, endorsed, or condoned by FileMaker. The minute this option became available I’m sure FMI was looking for ways to shut it down since it was costing them thousands of lost revenue and this should have been obivous to anyone who took advatage of this service.
Those who did should feel lucky they got away with it for so long. FMS is not a multi tenant solution to be shared by muliple entiities concurrently it never has been and never will be. Since they can’t use their technology to stop it they had to use legal means to do so.
I am sorry you feel the value proposition is not there but the hard cost license cost not hosting which can be all over the place based on your own situation starts at 50 cents a day per user and goes down from there. Given the value of the technology iteself for custom solutions and the benefits of the platform this community, dev con, certification etc..
I fail to see how FM doesn’t delilver value many times more than it’s cost. There are many reasons to leave FM I am helping two customers do that now to enterprise ERP systems at 50X the cost but I honestly fail to see how cost would be one of them. With all due respect, that is incorrect, not completely though, since it is only available under specific circumstances. FileMaker do or did before 17 at least offer, allow and condone shared hosting for multiple end users, but only as part of their SBA program with a single solution.
This was offered to me when I brought up peer to peer networking in a discussion with somebody quite high up at FileMaker, although I don’t actually know the correct title he holds.
However, in my case, they did not take into account just how many ‘clients’ that would be, as such it was unsuitable. If Bundle Redistributor engages in Solution Bundle Hosting as described in this section then Bundle Redistributor is not required to purchase a separate license for each customer. Solution Bundle Hosting is where Bundle Redistributor has developed and manages a single solution and is offering that same solution to multiple customers.
This, of course, may be good news for lots of Developers who are unaware of what the SBA program has to offer. Edit: Also, just want to put this out there, that my reasoning for leaving the platform doesn’t really have anything to do with costs.
Cost has never been a major factor. Thank you for this clarification which illustrates it was only allowed under specific legal terms in veritcal markets and not for third party cloud hosting to muliple clients at once which was my point. This of course is never mentioned on their website clearly or has ever really been promoted as a reason to adopt the platform in order to use it as a shared hosting platform apart from a single product you may be selling for that specific purpose.
Probably way off topic by now, but does anyone suppose that a product that is sold to , separate customers at. Or would FileMaker not get the respect and customers it’s looking for if they didn’t charge more? Of course, you have to do more than break even when selling to more customers because of the support overhead. If the solution were wildly successful, scaling would be accomplished by adding a second server and FM licensing to support it. Define “wildly”.
There’s a definite upper limit to the number of concurrent users you can serve. If the operation will not grow beyond those, and you are ok with the browser support then: yes, provided the cost numbers work out.
The licensing cost should be easy enough to calculate for different scenarios. So is the hardware cost. What other technology skills are available to you? What if the success outgrows the technical and practical limitations of WebDirect? What would the plan be? Either way, WebDirect is going to be an ideal proof-of-concept and prototyping environment. And it can be permanent or you outgrow it and plan for a different deployment while the WebDirect solution is being used.
This is a case where you need to talk to a FileMaker, Inc. As far as I know the Solution Bundle Agreement SBA , and some other options, like concurrent connections, are not available through the online store. If it does then becoming an FBA member is only a small step and won’t add much to the cost.
Certainly worth the benefits. What is the technically equivalent replacement for Runtime that FMI recommends? A detailed migration guide would be a good thing. FMI does not care about Runtime’s users needs.
They are not interested in supporting a technology that doesn’t make them any money and they are not looking to monetize it. The migration guide is one line long. They are giving Runtime users a very long lead time by slowing killing it on the depreciated list to either transition to paid versions of FM to replace it or allow you to move your RT solution to a different platform 4D comes to mind for desktop solutions. That’s all there is to it. Runtimes have one major advantage over FMPA, branding.
My clients have no issues with paying for licenses. They want Custom Branding. I have told the story before and I will tell it again. They jump on the Runtime and are happy to pay extra for their own branding and an app that is easier to install. So I walk away with a good chunk of development costs and they are happy. FMI gets nothing. Maybe one day FMI will figure it out, but they seem to be on this path of wanting every user to know they are using a FM product on desktop or through WD.
Like giving it a different file name and file icon or what do you do on customization for runtime? FileMaker is only evident on the 5 second closing screen with Runtime. The Runtime also only opens the specified file. An actual FMP install is very much a Filemaker process. Manually configuring every machine to have a new app name is a huge hassle. I have tried. FMP presents a way to create new or open other files. Companies want a single use application.
Snapshot links are close, but they still have issues. I’m so excited that Yoda has joined our little community! I suspect that Runtime will not achieve deprecation until FileMaker replaces it with a hopefully better product, but likely it will be something that allows them a cut of the sale, as through the App stores.
A percentage of free is still free, so releasing locked down, FMP-free desktop promotional applications would still be viable. I have been hoping for the same, but the ever increasing list of new features that are excluded from run times even functions such as UniqueValues does not fill me with optimism that this will happen. FMI has figured it out they just don’t want to do it. FileMaker does not want to admit to itself that no one cares about their brand they only care about the solution.
The only brand people care about is Apple and FileMaker has never found a good way to leverage that to their advantage. FileMaker isn’t interested in being a “platform” on which you create a solution that a doesn’t have their branding all over it and b they make no reoccuring revenue from.
FileMaker is only interested in selling FileMaker and as many licenses of 5 or more as possible into the business low code development market as possible and building up their brand in the process. You can debate that strategy all you want and it can be interesting and informatve at times but unless their is a wholesale change of direction at the company any product or market segment that does not fulfill that mission will be ignored.
So this means peer to peer, less than 5 user installs and runtimes are things of the past. While unfortunate for some, it’s probably a good thing if in the long run this strategy frees up resources and generates more revenue which FMI then reinvests in the platform to add some game changing features to make it truly competitive in the low code market. They are playing a long game here and none of us will know the outcomes of these decisions for a while.
However if 18 is amazing and just the first of many future versions that is we can all look back at 17 as the time they made a major course correction in the right direction. If that turns out not to be the case then we may all be singing a different tune, but for now I will give them the benefit of the doubt. All I can say is that as FileMaker reduces the deployment options and goes to less favorable licensing terms, it makes it easier and easier to make the decision to move off FileMaker and on to competitive products.
I think these statements seem to sum it up. I have plenty of clients that like FM but pass on it because of the inability to brand it for themselves. After all the advertising said it could make “Custom Apps”. FMI is no where near large enough to think about the type of brand recognition they are looking for in my opinion.
If they succeed, they get brand recognition and businesses recognize that FM does not offer branding and is not for custom apps. It is just another “platform”. No increased revenue, just a warm fuzzy feeling that people know what FM can and cannot do. Tableau is losing traction at many companies I deal with. They were all brand and hype. They are figuring out that the super cool demos they were shown take so much development time It is many times more cost effective to go in another direction.
Not inspiring as I recently recall seeing an FMI job post for a developer with extensive Tableau experience. Why FM wants to be associated with a product that companies are losing interest in confuses me.
Last time I checked the primary goal of a company was revenue. Brand is secondary. I guess Apple does not worry about the small overall revenue from FMI. I agree promoting Tableau was a mistake. You think FM is expensive? Their tool has 70 different platforms it connects to but is FM one of them? No of course not. I get FM needs to make money fine, but don’t promote a product that is almost 5 times more expensive than yours and only does one thing – analytics. Just another example of how their marketing department doesn’t get it.
Apple is mainly selling to individuals while FMI is mainly selling to businesses. Overblown marketing and brand-hyped sales leave business owners cold. Just playing devils advocate here a moment, and I KNOW it’s not the same order of magnitude, but you want to try and remove the branding from SAP then?? We don’t actually know this, do we??? This is best a guess..
You guys might want to review the rules for this site. Spend to much time speculating on why FileMaker is or isn’t doing something and someone will come in and close the thread–as has happened in these “We want our run times” threads before. I suppose that you are aware what SAP actioned last year in terms of license enforcement and how that was lived at the receiving customer end.
I respect your opinion and I tried to do that after 12 came out because I was so upset about it long sad story but it was just an expensive road to nowhere. I honestly don’t know what other platform I would go to and all my clients at least love FM so they would think I was crazy if I tried. They are listening. Many of the FMI employees read the threads and product ideas and issues.
IMHO two different things are mixed together in the discussion above, namely, the runtime and small FM uses. I have never interpreted FMI’s marketing as suggesting that its platform is the best choice for creating an app and selling it in the App store. But FMI’s marketing and product offerings do suggest — and more to the point, have suggested in the past — that its platform is suitable for small or individual users.
Therefore, I believe that it is legitimate to call upon FMI to provide 21st Century functionality for small users at a reasonable price. Perhaps this could be something as simple as tweaking the terms of the developer subscription, providing a secure way to sync via FMGo, or something else. It’s hard for me to understand how FMI would lose very much money by doing something like this, and easy to see how it might grow its client and develop base as a result.
I would like to know more about those small fish alternatives too. So FM should profit but Developers not? Didn’t FM profit from selling to the developer? Shouldn’t the developer who invested in the FM tools utilize them for their own profit? I don’t see where the apple store comes into this discussion much at all–except as it applies to using FM GO instead of runtimes. Small scale low cost solutions are what provide an “entry level” or “introduction” to the Filemaker platform and runtimes have been the main way to provide that option.
Runitimes were also a simple way to provide a limited demo copy to a prospective client in an effort to make a sale for the full up solution using the full platform. But with each release of FileMaker this option becomes less and less viable as it isn’t being upgraded to use many of the new features introduced with these new versions. This used to be the case for items that had either a licensing cost or to keep them from serving as a networked solution–understandable limitations.
But lately, even fairly simple new functions have been kept out of the code base for runtimes and thus there are more and more limits on what a run time can do as compared to the full version. Phil and cftutt, just to be clear, I wasn’t arguing against the runtime. Just suggesting that the arguments offered to defend FMI’s decisions regarding the runtime or other standalone capabilities e. They are not. But FM comes at a price and I totally get that the higher the price, the higher the value of the solution needs to be be to justify the cost.
But a single user or ‘less-than-5’ user base can still have a solution that is worth the price of FM. So let’s be careful about these blanket statements I don’t quite follow this. If we’re saying “FileMaker should be affordable for everything” then that’s not going to work. Because we don’t know how valuable the “everything” is.
It’s the comparison to the value that makes FM work or not. The initial outlay of funds does seem high for less than 5 users. However, this is how the numbers break down, just using the numbers from the online store. At users, the 5 user license is still a better value. The total cost per user over time for a single user:. Same numbers as the last one, but calculated by actual cost for the year. I get your point, but I do not believe that it is too much to ask that software costing as much as Filemaker should provide single users with, for example, proper sync and backup functionality.
Or maybe I have missed something. But it is my understanding that solutions should be put in folders excluded from Time Machine, that they cannot be opened from cloud services, that peer-to-peer sharing is not encrypted, that FMGo has no sync capability unless you DIY with a lot of work in every solution, etc.
I also believe it’s sad that Filemaker an Apple company doesn’t integrate better with Apple software for the single or small user e. That is part of what I mean by “left behind”. Well back ups can be easily scripted via “save a copy as” from standalone installations of FileMaker.
And there are several 3rd party produced sync options that you can employ with Fm Go solutions so you don’t need a DIY unless your really want to roll your own. Meaning that we’d need to pick a technology stack that is free or cheaper than FM and spend the time necessary to build something in that. Which is very likely going to be much slower than building something in FM.
Translating that cost our time into price for the customer is in our control. I’d spend considerable time trying to convince the client of the value of the solution National Health Service won’t permit health data to go outside ie. This sounds to me that the database contains ePHI information and is subject to regulations. If that is the case then that also meant that data needs to be encrypted at rest EAR. I don’t know if a runtime support that or not, but it might be a showstopper.
Unless the users disk is fully encrypted. Thanks to all of you for the info. I’m reading and pondering! This site contains user submitted content, comments and opinions and is for informational purposes only. Claris may provide or recommend responses as a possible solution based on the information provided; every potential issue may involve several factors not detailed in the conversations captured in an electronic forum and Claris can therefore provide no guarantee as to the efficiency of any proposed solutions on the community forums.
Claris disclaims any and all liability for the acts, omissions and conduct of any third parties in connection with or related to your use of the site. All postings and use of the content on this site are subject to the Claris Community Use Agreement. Search Loading. Register Login. Claris FileMaker. View This Post.
Any Substitute for Runtime Solution
Please update your operating system before upgrading to FileMaker Pro 17 Advanced. Operating systems not listed in the table above have not been tested and are not supported.
Remote Desktop Services clients supported on:. Other clients may work as expected but they have not been tested for use with FileMaker Pro Advanced and are not currently supported. Learn more about converting your pre FileMaker apps. Additional requirements. Networking: Peer-to-peer sharing is limited to 5 simultaneous client connections in addition to the host; each client requires a licensed copy of the software. NET framework version 4. To do so, you must have a supported email application installed and configured properly on your computer.
See a list of supported email applications. Deprecated and removed technologies FileMaker, Inc. As a result, some features and operating systems are deprecated and will be removed in future versions of FileMaker software. See a list of deprecated technologies. Skip to Main Content. Additional requirements Networking: Peer-to-peer sharing is limited to 5 simultaneous client connections in addition to the host; each client requires a licensed copy of the software. Was this answer helpful?
Yes No. Ask A Question. Windows 8. Minimum Requirements. Recommended Requirements.