PowerBuilder Support Changes for 2013

This article was corrected from it’s original version due to inaccuracies.  I misunderstood the press-release and apologize for any confusion.

SAP will be supporting the following versions of Sybase PowerBuilder from this point forward. If you are wondering why they had to make this unusual change it has to do with licensing issues of the RAD tools included with the prior versions of PB.  It is possible Telerik was demanding more money than initially agreed upon or there was some fallout in the partnership.  PowerBuilder 12.5.2 is still available for purchase.  If you have not upgraded your license, now might be a good time.  You can contact sue.dunnel@sap.com for more information


Product Platform End of Sale Migration Path
PowerBuilder 12.x Windows 04/15/2013 PowerBuilder 12.5.2
PowerBuilder 12.5.x Windows 04/15/2013 PowerBuilder 12.5.2


Please note that EBFs for PowerBuilder 11.x, 11.5.x, 12.x and 12.5.x (except for PowerBuilder 12.5.2) will no longer be available as of April 15, 2013.


11 Responses

  1. After some web search on the official LinkedIn Forums it seems that they had to remove 12.0 and 12.5.1 due to lisencing issues with Telerik RAD controls that were included with these product.
    They now offer 12.5.2 as a replacement which however breaks some code and has a few unsolved issues.

    Powerbuilder has not kicked the bucket (yet) …

  2. I agree there could have been more info, but it does say “Migration Path” and then says “12.5.2” – a newer version. I think one of the reasons they kept it so simple is they didn’t want to go into detail why all of a sudden they have the EOL the older versions. As already mentioned, it was due to third-party licensing issues. However, I do hope in the future that SAP will be more careful how they present things as many people misunderstand things.

  3. The notice clearly says “Migration Path”. I’m not sure how you read a product cancellation notice into that.

    Rather that post a clarification at the bottom of the article, why not correct it (including the title)? It’s not exactly a minor point, the whole first half of the article has incorrect information. Or at least make the “clarification” a bit more pronounced. Right now it just looks like more of the article, a part that some folks may not bother to read down through to.

    • Your point is well taken. I have taken this into consideration and modified the article. I don’t like to modify articles but I am not an investigative journalist or respected news site like RT.COM or INFOWARS.COM (hint) where it is critical that the original version of articles be preserved.

  4. Hi Rich

    I’m glad to see an update to your original post but was hoping you could either delete the original post or change its title.It’s still attracting a lot of attention and creating concern and SAP has not decided to kill PowerBuilder.

    As a few folks pointed out, the note that went out was a templated form that we are required to use for communications. This was a bit of a unique situation and the form didn’t fit our needs exactly but it was determined this was the best vehicle to use.

    We are working to finalizing the info for the v15 release so we can formally announce its availability, and understand that the customer community has been waiting for this for quite some time.

    If you’d like to chat further, please email sue.dunnell@sap.com or call me 978 618 6131.

    thanks for your help and support

    • Sue,

      I have had several readers request this and it makes sense. I apologize for any confusion I caused and aplogize to my loyal readers. Part of me was probably a little hacked at Sybase because after all the years I’ve evangelized PowerBuilder I have yet to be asked for my opinion about the future of the tool, and am forced to pay hundreds of dollars to purchase a copy of the tool so that I can write articles about it unlike WaveMaker who provided me free training and software to properly evaluate the tool.

      I think this was the right thing to do, thank you for your comment.


  5. Claramente, la información no es correcta. Porque induce a error para quienes como nosotros la leemos. Sin embargo, queda claro, que no se hace mayor esfuerzo en el comunicado, porque es muy breve, y no entra con claridad al detalle. Esto obedece más bien, a una labor poco acertada de quien emitió el comunicado.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *