FileMaker Pro 13 Prematurely Appears on Apple's Online Store [Updated]

[pubwvj]

Given Apple's history of dumping products I would not want to use Filemaker. The sorts of things one does with a database system one wants to be able to keep doing for the next 20 or 30 years, including having full access to all old data. Apple has a terrible reputation for very poor legacy support. Businesses need legacy support so they can continue to access their data and applications. Unlike consumers we don't want to reinvent the wheel every three to five years.

 

[3282868]

Reading some comments I'm a bit worried.

A few weeks ago I posted a thread asking for advice on the best OS X business management software/database. I have a friend who is branching out her business, using Square as her backend as she she has been a Square client for a while. I just got her a Square Stand for her iPad w/ a cash drawer and USB scanner. I recommended FileMaker Pro 12 Advanced - seems robust, can be tailored and has iOS apps. Either that or use Square's dashboard and Square Market which tracks sales, inventory, site hosting, etc. but worried it may be limiting and will lock her into Square's system. My other recommendation is a 2-bay Synology server for "Time Machine", web site hosting, business database, surveillance station, etc.

I recommended FileMaker Pro as I've used it for many small - med business clients in the past. Yet some have stated Apple may drop support (is this owned by Apple?), and other such comments.

Given she needs a system to track clients, inventory, business records, etc and allow access for other business partners and employees (esp. via iOS apps), is this the best system? I intended to make a custom business template tailored to her needs, now I'm a bit concerned.

Thanks!

 

[r.harris1]

Given Apple's history of dumping products I would not want to use Filemaker. The sorts of things one does with a database system one wants to be able to keep doing for the next 20 or 30 years, including having full access to all old data. Apple has a terrible reputation for very poor legacy support. Businesses need legacy support so they can continue to access their data and applications. Unlike consumers we don't want to reinvent the wheel every three to five years.

There's very little, if any, backwards compatibility over the time span of 20-30 years in the world of business and database software, except maybe the ability to read text files and standards-centric files (JPEG, etc). Businesses need some legacy support, though 20-30 years isn't sustainable for most software development shops. That's not ever going to be something you'll find from Apple. Businesses for whom significant legacy support is part of their business plans are probably better off with Windows.

 

[Daalseth]

They had their low-priced alternative called 'Filemaker Bento', but canned it last July, presumably due to lack of interest. This was their official explanation:

"FileMaker, Inc. is increasing its focus on FileMaker Product Line software. Thanks to the ease of creating iPad and iPhone solutions, our customers' use of FileMaker on iOS is growing rapidly. Our increased focus will create an even better experience for these customers.
As part of our sharpened focus, we will stop further development of the Bento consumer products."

The big problem with Bento was that, as I understood, it was not compatible with FileMaker DBs. Our address book, mailing lists, label formats and such is in FileMaker Pro 5. Bento would have required us to reenter and recreate everything. Right now I'm keeping one system running Snow Leopard ONLY so I can run FMP5 under Rosetta. I wish SOMEBODY would make a basic FM compatible DB program. Even if I lost our formats, I can redo them. What I don't want to do is enter all the names and addresses again.

 

[freiheit]

Wish there was a non-Pro FileMaker

Kind of wish there was a lower-cost FileMaker Standard (i.e. not Pro). FM Pro is really expensive for SOHO use but Bento is too limiting (non-relationship database). They've always needed a middle ground, similar to how Final Cut Express and Logic Express used to be.

 

[proline]

Given Apple's history of dumping products I would not want to use Filemaker. The sorts of things one does with a database system one wants to be able to keep doing for the next 20 or 30 years, including having full access to all old data. Apple has a terrible reputation for very poor legacy support. Businesses need legacy support so they can continue to access their data and applications. Unlike consumers we don't want to reinvent the wheel every three to five years.

Are you saying that your business uses a database that is compatible with raw data from 1983, without anyone having to have updated the format of it, exported it into another program, etc? Tell me more!

In all seriousness, I do get your point. Apple doesn't let their software get big a bloated with excessive reverse compatibility with everything. They clean stuff up, they rewrite stuff with modern APIs. If legacy support matters more to you than having software that's fast and easy to use, Apple is not a good fit.

 

[brewcitywi]

filemaker

What does FileMaker even do?

filemaker is a user-friendly database building program. placed on a server, it can host both pcs and macs on multiple platforms, with multiple users editing the same or different records simultaneously.

with backups, it's very robust and rarely loses data or becomes corrupted.

we've used it for all of our business forms for more than 10 years, and we really like it.

 

[Bonte]

Are you saying that your business uses a database that is compatible with raw data from 1983, without anyone having to have updated the format of it, exported it into another program, etc? Tell me more!

In all seriousness, I do get your point. Apple doesn't let their software get big a bloated with excessive reverse compatibility with everything. They clean stuff up, they rewrite stuff with modern APIs. If legacy support matters more to you than having software that's fast and easy to use, Apple is not a good fit.

I can't even export my project to other databases, FM-pro uses some special formats that cant be exported easily. FM-pro in its basics sucks but its the only database runtime maker i could handle as a non professional.

 

[DavidinBurl]

Most serious business software (ie. software that a business will buy and install on 5+ computers) really needs to have product key level installation. If FileMaker was available on the Mac App Store, a business could buy a single copy and install it on a bunch of computers. Apple obviously feels like this is worth the risk for their Pro apps, but I understand why they wouldn't want to permit this for FileMaker.

Apple has a program for businesses:

http://www.apple.com/business/vpp/

 

[Terrin]

FileMaker is Apple's dead appendage they keep dragging around. Bloated, unintuitive and expensive. It needs to be rewritten from the ground up, that is if anyone would still use it and priced more in line with Apple's other Pro software.

You do understand FileMaker is a separate company right?

----------

Given Apple's history of dumping products I would not want to use Filemaker. The sorts of things one does with a database system one wants to be able to keep doing for the next 20 or 30 years, including having full access to all old data. Apple has a terrible reputation for very poor legacy support. Businesses need legacy support so they can continue to access their data and applications. Unlike consumers we don't want to reinvent the wheel every three to five years.

The problem with your theory is FileMaker is a separate company. It has its own board and CEO.

 

[michelepri]

They need to spin Aperture and the other "Pro" software off into their own subsidiary like they did Filemaker. Where the hell is Aperture 4.0?

I think they abandoned a long time ago. Most professionals are on Lightroom now.

 

[Westside guy]

Four years between versions is a bit much, especially if you can never be sure that something is actually happening...

I would like to see Aperture get more love. However comments like this or "where is version 4.0" seem to be locked into a mindset of "major release cycles" that has little relevance in a post physical media world. A lot of companies have moved away from that concept - even Adobe, for much of their portfolio.

 

[JPSaltzman]

Just bring back AppleWorks 6

The database program in AW6 was easy to use, design, and implement. Bento tried to be AW6, but failed miserably in a lot of places (especially its search functionality).

Apple killed off AW and gave us iWorks, but still no database program and no equivalent drawing program.

Apple's software applications, for the most part, are poorly thought out. If they weren't included as part of the OS X, most people wouldn't buy them (Mail, in particular).

 

[SimonTheSoundMa]

I was a Bento user but being forced in to FMP so was just going to purchase 12, lucky I didn't.

However, what's up with the new pricing for 13? £100 price increase for the none advanced version over 12.

 

[r.harris1]

I think they abandoned a long time ago. Most professionals are on Lightroom now.

Real professionals use the right tool for the job. While I don't have access to the polling research you seem to have which indicates most professionals are using Lightroom, I do know a handful of professionals (those who earn their living from photography) and out of 5, 2 use Lightroom + Photoshop, 1 uses Aperture + Photoshop, 1 uses C1 + Photoshop, 1 uses Photo Ninja + Aperture for file management + Photoshop. Granted, none of these folks are large event/wedding shooters processing and managing gazillions of images, so maybe it's different in that crowd.

Personally, I find the LR interface and workflow hideous (though admittedly, Aperture could use some work too) and I also get far better results with the plugins I use (in my case) in Aperture than the native functionality in LR (or Aperture). Apple, at least for now, haven't abandoned Aperture and do continue with a very steady stream of updates. No they haven't released a "4" or "X", but honestly, I haven't seen a real compelling reason for Adobe to have the current release labeled "5.something" other than it makes people feel like major progress has occurred. And to me, it really hasn't. LR 3 was a great leap forward, 4 was decent, 5 is 4 + some minor bits.

Adobe's big leaps forward to me have been in ACR. But hey, that's just my opinion .

 

[SimonTheSoundMa]

Real professionals use the right tool for the job. While I don't have access to the polling research you seem to have which indicates most professionals are using Lightroom, I do know a handful of professionals (those who earn their living from photography) and out of 5, 2 use Lightroom + Photoshop, 1 uses Aperture + Photoshop, 1 uses C1 + Photoshop, 1 uses Photo Ninja + Aperture for file management + Photoshop. Granted, none of these folks are large event/wedding shooters processing and managing gazillions of images, so maybe it's different in that crowd.

Just feel sorry for those using Phocus.

I use CaptureOne for our PhaseOne, but it crashes too much tethered to D4 or D800 so have to use Lightroom for that.

 

[patent10021]

For me I always though of Filemaker as the Flash of the biz mgmt software circle. Always seemed half-assed. Maybe it's because I don't have much experience with it. Last time I used it was years ago and it was a painful experience.

I'm actually interested in it again for invoicing but there are plenty of better invoicing solutions i.e. Freshbooks etc. I checked FM site and there are no POS/CRM solutions. Of course there is CRM because FM is a *faux DBMS but there is no CRM + POS system. If FM had a deep dedicated POS module /integration it would be great. FM seems like its mainly used for inventory.

Could someone tell me what OS X POS systems companies are using together with FM? How are these companies sending POS data to FM?

To me it seems like LightSpeed is a much better solution.

 

[69650]

I believe it was mentioned in the demo of "Mac Pro" on the last Apple event. That said, Apple's lack of releases and roadmap have already caused many photographers to move to Lightroom - it is far superior for noise reduction and most operations actually dealing with images. Aperture and Lightroom was neck to neck for a while, with each new release of one leapfrogging the other. Then Apple stopped, back in 2010 - and apart from improved iPhoto integration and iCloud integration, only bugfixes and compatibility fixes have been coming.

I gave up last year, migrated - and I doubt I'm coming back even if the software is competitive. Four years between versions is a bit much, especially if you can never be sure that something is actually happening...

It's a real shame Apple doesn't spend more time and effort on it's software products. I suspect they are gradually downgrading them one by one to the point where they will all become basic and free designed to encourage "prosumers" to buy a new Mac or iPad.

With the Mac AppStore and the iTunes AppStore they get a 30% cut of all software sold anyway so there is little incentive to invest and create great new software products.

 

[50548]

Professional Finder?

The important question: is this going to be yet another dumbed-down and iOSified version of an otherwise great software?

 

[Foresee]

Given Apple's history of dumping products I would not want to use Filemaker. The sorts of things one does with a database system one wants to be able to keep doing for the next 20 or 30 years, including having full access to all old data. Apple has a terrible reputation for very poor legacy support. Businesses need legacy support so they can continue to access their data and applications. Unlike consumers we don't want to reinvent the wheel every three to five years.

What's the oldest standalone database on the Mac? FileMaker is the answer. FileMaker has been around since the mid 80's. I was a beta tester in 84-85 when the product was owned by Forethought. It later went to Claris and then over to Apple. Your 20-30 year logic really doesn't make much sense in an industry which is only about 30 years old. In the event Apple decided to stop supporting FileMaker, there would be 25 companies waiting in the wings to take it over.

 

[IceMacMac]

FileMaker is Apple's dead appendage they keep dragging around. Bloated, unintuitive and expensive. It needs to be rewritten from the ground up, that is if anyone would still use it and priced more in line with Apple's other Pro software.

You clearly have no clue what you are talking about. First it's not an Apple product, but rather produced by FileMaker Inc. And FM has won more awards than just about any other application.

With FileMaker You can create business applications that work on tablets, phones, windows machines and macs. And you can use it to drive dynamic data web sites.

There has never been a database development platform more celebrated for elegance and ease of use. Ever.

----------

The important question: is this going to be yet another dumbed-down and iOSified version of an otherwise great software?

FileMaker is inherently not a consumer product of the sort you are talking about. And again...need I say it again...FileMaker is not an Apple product. Yes FileMaker Inc. is a subsidiary of Apple...but very much has its own leadership, philosophy and business imperatives.

 

[Nicky G]

FileMaker is a database platform. If it's too expensive for you -- maybe you don't need a database. Our company has outgrown it to a degree, but it's been pretty good to is over the years.

 

[ejb190]

Well darn. I just saved my pennies for a couple years and upgraded to FMP Advanced 12.

When I first started, I got more done in FM in a month then I achieved trying to learn Access for two years. There are HUGE differences between 5.5 (which I started on) and 12. A lot of things have gotten simpler, but the system has also become much more robust, error resistant, and elegant.

Time to get over to the FileMaker Forums and see what they have heard...

 

[Zeiss]

I'm with you on that, requiring one license per computer makes FMP very expensive for a small business, but with your specific use case you could use Instant Web Publishing to make the database available to multiple computers from a single copy of Filemaker.

Edit: At least what Apple/Filemaker should do is have a free FMP database viewer/editor application (without development abilities) that runs on Macs/PCs much like Filemaker Go on iOS. It's pretty ridiculous to be forced to pay $299 to have the dev. version installed on a workstation that will be only used to do some minimal viewing and editing.

that is what Filemaker Advanced is for - you make a database and turn it into a self running 'runtime' application that you can provide to as many workstations as you like - 2 or 2000....

 

[pubwvj]

Your 20-30 year logic really doesn't make much sense in an industry which is only about 30 years old.

The problem with you people is you're looking backwards. You need to be looking forwards. In 20 to 30 years businesses and government will still want access to their data. Perhaps you aren't so long sighted but even many consumers would like to continue to have access to their media, movies, songs and other data down the road. You're looking the wrong way.