« [Tip] Method as a function and as a method | Main | [Tip] "Hover" state for text labels »
July 19, 2007
[Commentary] Filemaker 9: All New, All Improved, All Marketing Hype
by David Workman
Data Mosaic
Filemaker 9 is out and with it comes the inevitable pondering of what the reality is behind all the marketing hype.
As usual with any Filemaker release, there is a lot of marketing hype to read. As a Servoy developer and crack converter of Filemaker solutions over to Servoy, the one new feature that caught my eye is the ability to connect to SQL sources. If there is anything that defines the difference between Servoy and Filemaker, it is connecting to SQL databases.
It took me all of a minute to reach the conclusion that I didn't need to worry about a different source of business. I saw the acronym "ODBC" and my brain immediately checked out. That is like building a super car that looks all cool on the outside and then telling everyone there is a VW beetle (ca 1970) engine inside. That is called a "kit car" for those of you who grew up in the sticks of Idaho (I raise my hand). Anyone driving by in a Lamborghini is going to chuckle.
Alright, so what does Filemaker really mean when they say "Live Connections to SQL Data"? Check out this article by Bob Cusick (he took the time to read past "ODBC").
Well now, isn't that a lot of hype for what turns out to be a very situational feature.
To me, Filemaker has become the Microsoft Office of the database world. Each release is an exercise of how many features can be added. Most of the features turn out to be half-assed implementations of something done much better somewhere else. Sure you can publish a newsletter with Word but if you're serious you will use Quark. Sure you can manage a project with Excel but if you're serious you will use a real project management application. The feature bloat has become so bad with these apps that I find it painful to use Word for actually doing something it is supposed to do: write a simple letter! The last version of Word I liked came out in 1994.
I have to admit that Filemaker is still sticking quite well to the ease of use factor. This is a good thing. But the main issues with Filemaker 9 are still the same as they were in all previous versions: once you start scaling up past the small workgroup environment the effectiveness of Filemaker rapidly drops off.
My conclusion with this release of Filemaker is that the business of rewriting Filemaker apps in Servoy will remain the same or get better. Filemaker developers will continue to think that they can do anything in Filemaker, refuse to learn additional skill sets, and write apps not well suited to Filemaker's strengths.
Due in large part to Filemaker's marketing hype. With this approach to improving their product (driven by marketing bullet points) I am hoping for a 50% increase in "new and improved" features next year when Filemaker 10 comes out. 45 is your target number Filemaker. Make sure you include the current fashionable tech buzz words. Whatever it takes to keep the feeding frenzy going.
| Posted by David Workman on July 19, 2007 at 03:12 PM in Commentary | Permalink
Comments
David, a few notes.
1) It is FileMaker. Capital M.
2) Where have you gotten that FileMaker is trying to sell its products as enterprise-class tools? They are clear, and have been for years, that they are not at all interested in 500+ user systems. So you're comparing Apples to Oranges. 1-200 or so users is their sweet spot and in that space they are top dog, in my opinion.
3) FileMaker runs circles around Servoy in ease of use. Hands down.
4) I tried the Servoy demo after a Cusick webinar a while back. I found even your own test server with light load painfully slow. Even Cusick wasn't sure why. So what are you boasting about? I also thought your interface development tools were either unattractive or difficult to understand.
5) FileMaker 9 is just the beginning as far as ESS (External SQL Source) funtionality. You are being unfairly judgmental with the ESS features, in my view. But I guess you have an agenda, eh? ;)
Posted by: Chris Kubica | Jul 19, 2007 7:05:19 PM
Me...an agenda?!? Maybe... :)
But no more of an agenda than current FileMaker marketing. This version release is far from "All new, All Improved." It got a list of incremental changes with the crown jewel of the list (SQL connectivity) having a whole list of gotchas associated with it.
My point with this post is that the FileMaker marketing is once again a bit in front of reality. To address your other points:
Enterprise class tool. I don't say anything along these lines. I bring up the issue of "scaling". Certainly your number of users impacts scaling and FileMaker has a fairly black and white limit in this area. In my experience though, application complexity is where you will notice the difference between Servoy and FileMaker in a real hurry.
Ease of use. This is HIGHLY debatable. If you are not a programmer, then FileMaker is absolutely the easiest to use. If you are a programmer...you are managing a solution with 200 tables, 300 users, 750 layouts, 5000 scripts, 10 offices around the country...your solution has complex logic and GUI needs...you need to integrate very closely with web applications, finance systems, web services, Exchange servers, etc...you have 50 disconnected laptops and 200 connected iPhone users -- then Servoy all of a sudden is by far the easiest to use. In fact, Servoy is not even sweating in this scenario. With FileMaker you would need a box of duct tape handy to keep the whole thing running.
FileMaker is certainly trying to become a "developer class" database/development system. And this is where they deservedly can take a little friendly ribbing.
Posted by: David Workman | Jul 20, 2007 10:20:49 AM
Hi Chris and David - thanks for your comments!
Hey, as I have said 1,000 times before - FileMaker is a great tool for what it is. Servoy is a great tool for what it is.
I'm not sure I agree with David's assertion that there is a limit of 100 concurrent connections OUTGOING on the Advanced Server when connecting to an ODBC source. I couldn't find out any clear documentation on that - perhaps if you know the answer - you could post it? I DO know, however, that ODBC is not an "unlimited" technology. It does have a concurrency upper limit - or if they are trying to jam everyone through a single connection - then that will be interesting from a scale point of view as well.
As for Chris' assertion that FMP "runs circles" around Servoy in terms of ease-of-use - I think if you're talking about version 6 - you're right. After 7.0 - IMHO - no way. FMP is very convoluted - especially with the relationship graph and bi-directional joins, etc.
Basically - my "agenda" is to use the right tool for the right job. Servoy is for SQL - FileMaker is NOT. Servoy is for high concurrency and stability under load - FileMaker is NOT.
Bottom line: use the tool you like best for the job at hand.
Posted by: Bob Cusick | Jul 24, 2007 7:59:59 AM
Just a comment on Bob Cusick's article which is referenced in this article. Hey, Bob! Long time no see :) Anyhow, it seems like you are saying that the use of ESS in FileMaker 9 requires installation of ODBC drivers on every FileMaker installation. If I read you article correctly, this is not true. You only need to install the ODBC drivers on FileMaker Server (no FileMaker Server Advanced is required).
Posted by: John Mark Osborne | Aug 14, 2007 6:33:53 PM
Hi Bob (and all others .-)
Just a little comment to the phrase ... especially with the relationship graph and bi-directional joins ...
In the Entity-Relationship-Theory (from Peter Chang), a relationship is per definitionem bi-directional, so in my understanding very correct. I do NOT say anything about relationship graph in FM, though.
BTW, I would like to talk with you (at Servoy World hopefully :-) about the relationship handling in Servoy and the consequences of making the implementation of them unidirectional. Hint: Did you ever check the 16 possibilities with the 2 checkboxes:
- Allow parent delete when having related records, and
- Delete related records
when you implement a bidirectional relationship in Servoy?
Best regards, Robert
Posted by: Robert Huber | Aug 15, 2007 9:35:33 AM
If this doesn't blow up the Filemaker hype, nothing does.
http://alphasoftware.blogspot.com/2007/09/sql-performance-alpha-five-vs-filemaker_20.html
Posted by: Anonymous Coward | Oct 2, 2007 9:02:59 PM
Alpha Five is front end for SQL databases which offloads work to the SQL database. The ESS feature in FileMaker 9 is not designed as a front end. FileMaker designed the feature to integrate SQL tables as if it was part of the standard FileMaker schema. The intended result was ease of use and familiarity. So... it is true that sorts are very slow on large data sets because FileMaker has to import that entire data set. Finds are quick because they are sent to the SQL server for processing. Deleting large sets of records is sent as individual deletes so it is also slow. The previously existing Execute SQL script step can make these processes much faster but that requires more knowledge of SQL. Simply put, the new FileMaker 9 ESS feature is not designed to compete with Alpha Five. The new FileMaker 9 ESS feature is designed to easily integrate SQL databases with existing FileMaker tables, fields, scripts and other schema. If you want more power, FileMaker has long offered the traditional ODBC features for power users.
Posted by: John Mark Osborne | Oct 24, 2007 8:42:26 PM
I am a bit worried about Servoi, the product and the organisation behind it.
Not that I have any reason to believe that the developers behind Servoy are incompetent or that I have any personal experience proofing that the product is bad - but this is the very first time I have faced a product being marketed with fierce attacks on a competitor. This gives me the feeling that something is not as it should be.
Posted by: Carsten Levin | Aug 4, 2008 5:10:52 PM
Note to the poster above. Carsten: Servoy Magazine is not a publication of Servoy, it is an independent magazine and does not reflect the opinion of Servoy. If a columnist at Servoy Magazine wishes to say something about Filemaker that is his good right, this is a free world. Servoy does not do fierce attacks on competitors, and in fact Filemaker is not a competitor of Filemaker, we love Filemaker here at Servoy.
Posted by: Jan Aleman | Aug 15, 2008 1:56:05 PM
I completely aggree with article. We are developing solutions in FM, and fact is that filemaker is in real life cabable of managing with 20 tables ,100 fields and 30 relations. We have developed a solution with 800 layouts, over 180 tables, oves 1000 relations and fact is that thing runs awfully slow, than we converted it in 4D...is runs smoothly...so filemaker is just a lot of marketing and talk.
Posted by: JOhn | Oct 21, 2008 3:06:55 AM
There are pros and cons to both products. The biggest drawback to FM is scalability. You definately will hit some walls. The other issue is deployment. Servoy is great in this area.
That said, ESS is a great feature and if used properly, can be very powerful in an FM environment. FM is MUCH more friendly to the end user. Servoy is geared to the developer.
What's missing in Servoy so far? One, it's not as stable and is evolving very quickly (this has good and bad points).
Two, it does not have the "default" ability to give end user ability to do reports, export and import easily and allow end users to "tweak" layouts. Again, there's pros and cons to this behavior.
Up through version 3 at least, there are many small annoying things missing from Servoy as a developer tool. it is very dependent on Java Beans and the documentation for such plug-ins is scare and difficult to non-sophisticated programmers, or those who want an easy to use 4GL. For example, I wanted to implement the record slider in my own Status area, and this proved to be nearly impossible, even though Servoy uses it in their standard Status bar. "Go find a Java Bean and read the docs" was what I was told, but it was beyond my skill level. I enlisted some "expert" help and was told the current implementation would make it "difficult" to do.
This may be a silly example, and v4 may address some of these issues, but there's a "maturity" level to the product that has not quite yet been reached. I hope the product gets there because it has great potential, but the targets are moving on all sides.
Cheers!
Lee
Posted by: Lee | Nov 10, 2008 4:47:21 PM
Just tried the new FM 10 Server Advanced for the ODBC set of the former version was buggy. And even with V 10 the ODBC querys are so painfully slow that I won't think about offering such a solution to my internal customers (colleagues).... > 1000 Euros for nothing!
Cheers from Munich / Bavaria
Posted by: marc | Apr 2, 2009 11:48:00 AM
Lee,
I think the product in its 4.1 version is stable and mature enough to kick all the FM 10 in the world!
My company is making a move from FM to Servoy, and I think it is for the best.
As for ODBC, I prefer to laugh because this technology is now so old and slow that no one in the real world is seriously considering it for serious production environmennt.
And the appaling support for standards of FileMaker make it more a toy than a serious development environment.
Posted by: Patrick Talbot | Apr 4, 2009 6:30:21 PM
