Originally Posted by Frank777
...Filemaker 13 (which no one will buy because of superstition.)
The sore points with Filemaker have been the same since OS X released. No integration with AB and Calendar. No 'look and feel' of an OS X application. Steep learning curve for some advanced database features.
1) Apple owns Filemaker. End of story. If you despise Lincolns, you have a problem with Ford Motor Co.
Plug-ins are great for a lot of software extensions. Messing with my Contacts and Calendar (and the whole syncing side of things) aren't one of them.
2) "Splitting the Windows guys off" is only slightly different from Apple's embrace of iWork via iCloud - to ensure they don't have to build the apps for a second desktop OS. The benefits are cleaner code, faster development and more OS-level support.
3) Idiotic? Hardly. Spreadsheet apps (not including numbers) can sport some serious features as well. Databases are complicated, but the Apple way of doing things is to make the complicated seem simple. No one is asking the ProTools be rewritten to work like Garageband. If anything, I'm asking that ProTools be rewritten to acknowledge that OS X stores a lot of music in the iTunes library - and has done so for a decade.
4) My point about Evernote and Basecamp is that more people than ever are using databases in one form or another and, unless I've missed a memo, the Filemaker share of that market is minuscule. There are a million popular To Do apps for Mac, and none of them are based on Filemaker.
You're wrong about people not buying the next version of FileMaker; once its features are revealed it's going to sell like gangbusters.
I'm a huge Apple fan; however, and I can't say this often enough, Apple doesn't dictate how FileMaker is developed. FileMaker has its own set of engineers at the Wedge.
Why is it not acceptable to use plugins for doing things like interacting with one's calendar or address book? Furthermore, there are solutions in place already that interact with Google Calendar, and they don't use a plugin. The fact of the matter is that in the list of requested features, interaction with the Mac calendar and contacts is low on the list of priorities; if it were in high demand, it would have been implemented by now.
"No look and feel of an OS X app..." Really? Looks like OS X to me. Works like a good Apple app to me. I live on Mac all day long; I have no complaints at all about the FileMaker UI.
You said that the "steep learning curve for some advanced features" is a sore point; that makes no sense. The fact that they're advanced features is exactly why it takes a little longer to learn them. FileMaker gives a novice user a lot of power out of the box (even more in the next release); if one wants to build a great solution with it, there are tons of resources for learning how to take FileMaker to the next level.
You said, ""Splitting the Windows guys off" is only slightly different from Apple's embrace of iWork via iCloud - to ensure they don't have to build the apps for a second desktop OS. The benefits are cleaner code, faster development and more OS-level support." That's ludicrous. I work on a solution every day that is used on Windows machines; users have no way to tell that I wrote 90% of it on a Mac. That's the beauty of FileMaker, that it doesn't require the developer to write the same solution twice. Having worked in Visual Basic for years, I can remember having to do the same thing twice, and it made no sense and ended up taking longer to support and develop, not to mention the chance for introducing bugs when trying to duplicate a solution in 2 environments. Also, if you were to see how many Windows users there are in FileMaker, you'd realize that the WORST thing they could do is split it into 2 separate environments.
Your ProTools comment was simply nonsense. iTunes and ProTools are totally separate things--they both play audio, and the similarity ends there.
As to Evernote and Basecamp, WHY would anyone want to write that sort of solution with FileMaker (even though it COULD BE)? Some databases scale better with enormous data sets (in the millions); on the web, mySQL is better for that sort of thing, as any knowledgeable FileMaker developer will tell you.
You won't see Apple release a database application because they already own a company that excels at it; FileMaker has been around for more than 20 years, has a huge user base (miniscule? hardly), is in almost every industry. They've had profitable quarters for the last 15 quarters, are growing, have added to the # of engineers devoted to the platform; the company is profitable, healthy, releasing great new features in the upcoming version, which is going to blow people away.
There are things that require "big iron;" I wouldn't use FileMaker for a web app that involves millions of records, just as I wouldn't use Garageband for anything more than amateur musical ramblings. I don't use Simpletext to write a business letter either. FileMaker Pro is successful because it allows users to have solutions that are quickly modifiable, fast (I've seen 13 million records sorted in under 3 seconds), can be interface with web applications, works on iOS devices extremely well and in a cost-efficient manner, and, in the next version, even MORE useable across the Internet.
Try writing something in any other database application (as I have); FileMaker is far ahead, and industry stats support that. It's not trying to be Oracle or mySQL--it fills a great spot in the realm of data storage and will continue to do so. If it's too complicated for you, use a spreadsheet or hire a FileMaker developer; if your needs exceed its capabilities, go to Oracle and spend thousands of dollars.