Adobe releases Beta of Xara-Style WYSIWYG-Editor

[mwenz]

I suspect that anyone involved in or interested in web site design software will likely be connected to the web.

See, here is where there is either a disconnect or I failed to communicate.

It's not that Mrs. Smith is unlikely to have an internet connection. Heck, maybe she already even has a domain or free space somewhere. It is rather that she is more likely to purchase something that has a more permanent license structure than a pay-for-use license. And most likely available even at her local grocery store.

With Muse--or whatever the final name will be--a potential customer for Adobe will need to hear how great and easy to use it is from some sort of review (on-line or print). Make a decision to go to Adobe and then make some sort of decision as to which of the (current) licenses she desires. And she obviously wants "easy," and Adobe isn't making it easy. Or "permanent."

There are several options available at most office supply places. Already on the shelf. There are over a dozen wysiwyg web authoring software packages available at most every on-line software review site.

Which type of license do you really see as being attractive Mrs. Smith?

[ShapeShifter]

I don't speak for Mrs Smith, but I'm guessing that Mike Wenz isn't a fan of cloud apps

[pauland]

Which type of license do you really see as being attractive Mrs. Smith?

I don't know about Mrs Smith or Mrs Jones, but I suspect that Ms Smith is more interesting in pursuing options that get the job done and is afordable to her and her clients. She is savvy enough to understand that nobody actually buys software, only the permission to install and use it. She also realises that software is continually upgraded so her costs are not a one-off purchase, but over the lifetime of the products she licenses she will need to finance upgrades if she wishes to remain with current software and have support, so effectively it makes little differrence to her whether she pays up front as a single purchase or over time. She approaches her web design work professionally not as a hobby so she factors these ideas in as the cost of doing business and understands that in the subscription model particularly her ongoing success is dependent on finding clients that are not operating on bargain basement margins but recognise the value a more sophisticated setup can bring. Similarly, Adobe recognises there's little point trying to get everyone to buy or subscribe to product by driving down prices, when there are clients who will accept a slightly higher cost for a more sophisticated product and in return will drive Adobes bottom line by providing recurring income rather than one-off revenue. Adobe also recognises the value of direct sales without the need for boxed product and distribution chains, so again margins are better if middle-men are removed.

Adobe likes Ms Smith, but Mrs Smith can go with Xara if she wishes.. ;-)

Seriously, there are good things about the subscription model for many people, but like everything, it's not for everybody. Adobe already does subscription pricing for most of it's software, but it seems to be rather more costly than buying the licence outright and then upgrading, but would be ideal for a short project or as a means of avoiding large up-front costs. Subscriptions gives companies a regular income rather than the do or die seasonal product release cycle frenzy.

[mwenz]

I would reckon the highest percentage of purchasers of wysiwyg web software are hobbyists and single site or a another site or two for friends, rather than professional developers. Odds are Mrs. Smith or Jones are in the hobbyist percentage. A professional is, after all, one who makes the significant portion of their income from paid work.

As goes web software, so goes most all software. It is the hobbyists who drive the market--whether it be features, so-called ease of use or price-point.

And it is just not software that hobbyists make up the lion's share of customers. Heck, I own a business that primarily makes hand saws. W&S sells all over the world. I would say 85-90% of its customers are hobbyist wood workers.

On the one-hand, hobbyists are great as there is always a fresh supply of folk entering in any given hobby. On the other hand, hobbyists are a fickle and perhaps a frugal bunch. I do not expect Muse in its current scheme to do well with hobbyists. Which is good for the rest of the wysiwyg web tools. Even if they purchase a month or two of Muse subscription, they will soon look at the other tools available.

Take care, Mike

[Guest]

I would reckon the highest percentage of purchasers of wysiwyg web software are hobbyists and single site or a another site or two for friends, rather than professional developers.

Mwenz,
I think it gets very obvious that Adobe with Muse does not target Hobbiests at all.
There's an enormous Group of non Code affine professional Graphics Professionals which could have good use of a Program which works very similarly to other Adobe-Programs they already use on a daily basis.
The program comes with stuff like Graphics Styles and Paragraph-Styles - Hobbiests would rarely ask for.
Creating a dedicated application for these users makes a lot of sense to me. Xara imo should target this User-Group more, for example by painless File-Referencing from Adobe-Packages.

[pauland]

As goes web software, so goes most all software. It is the hobbyists who drive the market--whether it be features, so-called ease of use or price-point.

I really disagree with that point. If it were true Xara/Magix would be a bigger company than Adobe.

Markets are segregated in many ways and Xara straddles the hobbyist/semi professional divide. I know there are professionals using Xara exclusively here but they represent a minute part of the professional market. Adobe and many other companies charge significantly more for professional-oriented products that include specialised features that the consumer could care less about (or understand), and the reverse is true for professionals using consumer software.

Hobbyist software is a sizeable market, but it doesn't dictate what the professional market is doing or dominate it.

[mwenz]

I think it gets very obvious that Adobe with Muse does not target Hobbiests at all.

Yes. I wrote as much yesterday earlier in this thread.

...The program comes with stuff like Graphics Styles and Paragraph-Styles - Hobbiests would rarely ask for...

Uh. Hobbyists (and professionals) are using these capabilities in at least a couple other wysiwyg web software packages that cost roughly equivalent to WDP7 ($99 USD).

However, I think most current Adobe-using professionals will simply not purchase a Muse subscription regardless of its "capabilities" and "ease of use." I could be very wrong about that, but it is clear to me that segment (professional web designers) is what Muse is being targeted at. I believe that focus will change if Adobe desires Muse to be successful, but again, I could be wrong.

As regards professional and consumer development of Xara products

http://trends.builtwith.com/websitel...a-Web-Designer

Is an infinitesimal number of sites, even given the stat is incorrect.

For a better understanding of what professional web development uses, and the language/framework behind those sites is:

http://trends.builtwith.com/framework

Of course, those stats include professional and consumer use, especially in the PHP category (because of the ubiquitous WordPress usage for non-professional development).

Take care, Mike

[TechMedia]

Tested Muse. For now, Xara is far better.

[Cloud]

Not tested it yet, but the features seem to be quite nice, I have achieved all of them with xara webdesigner with the exception of the dynamic (flexible) page width. Will stick with webdesigner for now. By the way, the subscription thing is just silly.

[mwenz]

Hi skech--I believe Muse makes fixed-width sites. It's sales blurb mentions "dynamic page height." Which simply means one can add content without adjusting the page length or typing in values.

Take care, Mike