They're always improving it, and I have been quite pleased with their improvements. There is some organizational stuff that I'd like to see done differently. They should make a structure so that you can have the data in one file and the app, the scripts, and the program in another file. 

I would like to be able to easily share scripts between different databases. I write stuff, and some of the functions are shared across different databases. So, I have to copy them from one database to another. I wouldn't mind an infrastructure where I had a file, and on loading the program, this file is loaded with the functions that I had written. I can then call them from any database that I happen to be using. 

Currently, you have a database open that has all of its data pieces and program pieces, and then you open another database that has got all of its data pieces and program pieces. Nothing is shared between them. When I write a complex function and I want to use it in two or three different databases, I have to copy it to each one of them and also remember where all it is used. It would be good if it has a little bit different organizational structure so that you could put your shared stuff in one place, and it loads the stuff. It is just an architectural difference. I've sent this requirement to them, but I doubt if that's going to happen. It is a huge system, and making changes for a single individual doesn't happen that quickly.

View full review »

Every software company has just really un-straightforward pricing. They need to learn how to simplify. FileMaker has some convoluted pricing.

You've got to get a magnifying glass out and read between the lines to see what they're really saying. Most businesses aren't going to have dedicated users. They should have some type of floating license or something. I can work with a system that has all five users at a time and the sixth one has to wait. However, they don't know how to do that yet and make it easy for various users to access it.

View full review »

It is expensive to run a client server set up in a large corporation due to the requirement to purchase individual licences, thus changing to JS or similar web based programming is tempting...However FM remains very easy to develop without need for a large IT team. Dynamic field presentation on the front end is lacking and requires roundabout scripting. View full review »

I've only used the solution for about five months, so I haven't used it long enough to notice if there are any features that are lacking.

The UE is not very up-to-date. It looks like something that was created in the 90s. In that sense, the user experience is lacking.

It would be nice if it was easier to export data. There's a lot of clicking involved. They should simplify the process so that it's not so difficult to send offers to our customers.

It should be easier to do a global search. You must know what you are searching for and can't be vague, otherwise, you won't find what you need.

View full review »

I think standardization to the IT world could be improved in terms of working with relational databases and using the connector to go over databases to standard API. Also, all the standard patterns that are used for the development of software could be improved to use less scripts and to use more procedures, functions, and so on.

Multimedia data management is not really developed in FileMaker. So for master data, it should be really enhanced to do it quite well.

The lack of a specialist of the program is one of the main issues of this system. Finding someone who knows it is really hard.

View full review »