Hi,
Just voicing an opinion here. I know that a lot of work went into this plugin, but my gosh, 300$? I mean this is a lot more than the price of Daylite itself, if I'm not mistaken. I'm sure if the price wasn't as steep, that many more people would part with let's say, 130 or 150 $. I would be one of them.
Anyone else have something to add? Are you in agreement? Do you disagree?

It does seem steep to me, too. I own it, and it has saved a lot of time for me. But having paid that much, it's frustrating that the pace of bug fixes has been so slow. It includes a bug whereby if you use it to update existing DL opportunities/projects with updated data in Filemaker, it overwrites the opportunity name, leaving it blank. Obviously, that renders it unusable for anything other than creating new records in DL.

I suspect if it were priced lower, there would be higher adoption, and a quicker pace of bug fixes (the more people who complain about bugs, the more effort they seem to put into fixing them). Alas, those of us who paid so much end up not being a priority.

I agree completely. I came to DL from a FileMaker solution due to certain limitations in the solution and the fact that the per-seat cost of the FileMaker solution was so very high. DL offered most of what I needed for considerably less, but there were a few features that I could only implement in FileMaker. When I first heard that the connector was coming out I thought, "great, I could make a hybrid system affordably that would give me everything I need." But then I learned the price and lost interest. An ADD-on to DL should not cost way more than DL itself, in my opinion.

Keep in mind that unlike Daylite itself, the FileMaker connector is licensed "per server" - it is not licensed "per user".

As far as the actual price - we have to amortize the cost of the development versus the demand/need.

We can all agree that the FileMaker connector would not be a high volume thing - especially if it licensed per server.

We also foresee this being used in larger installations and the savings time wise to that kind of organization would be pretty big as compared to the cost of the connector.

Hello,

With all due respect, the reason it isn't a high volume thing could be precisely because of the fact that it costs so much. This is critical for me, so having to enter data twice in filemaker and Daylite is a pain. My filemaker solution has elements that cannot be duplicated in Daylite, so Daylite cannot replace my filemaker solution.
I'd rather pay a developper 500 $ to adapt my filemaker database to do the things I want Daylite to do than pay for a buggy solution that costs more than the program itself (Daylite).

I am actively looking for other solutions as we speak in order to fulfill my needs. This is a great dissapointment for me since Daylite seems to have so much potential, but I have only started using it since a few months and from what I'm reading, I'm not the only one having these same concerns. Too bad guys, but this is way beyond borderline greedy.