Subscription Costs

[Orchids-World]

When I subscribed Dreamweaver a year ago, the subscription was around $22.00, it increased to around $26.00 and now gain it is going to increase to over $28.00. For me, with exchange rates added, it will cost over $30.00 every month.

That sounds good if you use Dreamweaver every day, but I only use the application for about 20 minutes a month. Taking into account that I am just a pensioner with no regular income other then my pension and my website "Orchids-World.com" is Non Profit Site, I believe it is a bit too much.

I could use another similar program; however, I am using Dreamweaver for over 15 years and I am used to it. Maybe I maintain bad habits of yesteryear, but I think Adobe could easily effort to maintain a reasonable price for aged people like myself. It is sad to think, that due to lack of options, I have no choice but to look for alternatives.

It is sad.

George

[osgood_]

And youre being charged a premium and virtually held to 'hostage' you have no other choice.

An option to buy would go a long way to changing my point of view or failing that reduce the price of a single apllication subscription. In the  UK l would have to pay 240 pounds a year for DW as opposed to better software which is a third of the cost. DW doesnt even have the most up to date Bootstrap framework included...........financially something isnt right, you know it and l know it.

[rayek.elfin]

osgood_  wrote

And youre being charged a premium and virtually held to 'hostage' you have no other choice.

An option to buy would go a long way to changing my point of view or failing that reduce the price of a single apllication subscription. In the  UK l would have to pay 240 pounds a year for DW as opposed to better software which is a third of the cost. DW doesnt even have the most up to date Bootstrap framework included...........financially something isnt right, you know it and l know it.

Yep, that's what I said: unless you happen to be a photographer or only need Photoshop, the upkeep for a single application is quite high, and in the case of Dreamweaver better and lower cost perpetual options exist anyway. I'd argue that most free code editors do a better job than DW in that regard. And let's be real here: almost no professional coder uses Dreamweaver anymore, excepting a group of holdouts on these here forums.

But that is exactly what Adobe wants: they made the single app rent relatively high to lure users into renting the full CC suite. Which does makes sense to a lot of users, but in particular for Adobe. It's an old psychological sales trick, really: "One app costs THAT much? Oh, I'd better get myself that full CC suite then!".

[BenPleysier]

And let's be real here: almost no professional coder uses Dreamweaver anymore, excepting a group of holdouts on these here forums.

Please back your assumptions up with facts.

I for one know that there are many developers in other forums, like DMXZone, PVII and Webassist that use Dreamweaver because of its extensibility.

[Nancy OShea]

Well some people still use Dreamweaver.

[osgood_]

https://forums.adobe.com/people/Nancy+OShea  wrote

Well some people still use Dreamweaver.

'people' - that could include grandma or grandpa who update their woollen mittens website, they could hardly be thought of as professionals. How many regularly come into this forum and announce 'I'm 85 years old and just starting to use DW'. Nothing wrong with that,  I admire them for doing so but they are not professionals.

[BenPleysier]

Just read an article in INN'twente where it states that Wappler is free of charge and that the basic package includes plenty of building blocks to make slideshows or interactive apps. If you want more, there are plenty of building blocks that can be purchased in a similar manner to Dreamweaver extensions.

The article also mentions that half a million web designers and developers use their products. Does this mean that half a million Dreamweaver customers will leave the fold?

[osgood_]

BenPleysier  wrote

Just read an article in INN'twente where it states that Wappler is free of charge and that the basic package includes plenty of building blocks to make slideshows or interactive apps. If you want more, there are plenty of building blocks that can be purchased in a similar manner to Dreamweaver extensions.

The article also mentions that half a million web designers and developers use their products. Does this mean that half a million Dreamweaver customers will leave the fold?

Don't know. Have to wait and see. FREE of charge interesting approach - personally I would rather pay for a decent web-editor - that kind of suggests unless you purchase a 'building block' it may be lacking in some areas. Myself Im not really interested in DMXZones other products. I think its trying to take a market share of DW users which in my opinion is mainly aimed at the 'amatuer' market, certainly not professional market. I even wonder if its all a ploy to get Adobe to scoop it up even before it hits the market.

Probably have to wait for the next decent paid-for web editor to emerge if it ever does which I'm skeptcial about. It was a healthy and innovative market between 2000 - 2012 before a deluge of FREE products like Atom, Sublime, VC Code and Brackets stormed the market

[BenPleysier]

You've hit the nail on its head, this is not a product that you would fancy. It is like using robots to build a car, no brain power required except perhaps push a button to pop up, amongst others, a carousel or a master/details page.

One nice touch though, if one does not deploy Bootstrap, no jquery library is required and there is plenty of AJAX action.

My Suggestion: Leave Wappler to the amateurs like me.

[BenPleysier]

Forgot to say, Wappler not only includes the Bootstrap framework, it also includes Framwework 7 with more to come.

[osgood_]

BenPleysier  wrote
Forgot to say, Wappler not only includes the Bootstrap framework, it also includes Framwework 7 with more to come.

Im unclear why a web-editor would want to blur the boundaries and introduce iOS app building frameworks. Its like Adobe Photoshop tries to be a web-editing tool when they had a much better one, Fireworks.

I prefer applications to stay focused in what they do otherwise they become too bloated and watered down. I guess which is why something like php storm will never be rivalled because the developers of that bit of kit purely concentrate on php development.

Although I agree about the jQuery aspect I think the hype around jQuery being a bad workflow is put around by non-sensical professionals who would rather use the more 'unfriendly' javascript structure approach or god forbid angular or vue. Its really up to javascript to become more user friendy which it is desperately trying to do and to some extent echo what's in jQuery, but it has a way to go before it becomes 'likeable' as a language.

Yes jQuery adds weight to a page, which is not desirable, but no more so than other plugins and popular frameworks, one too many an image, so I don't buy into the bandwidth argument, that's poor.

An amatuer, that's progress for you to acknowledge that.

[I_Hate_Subscriptions]

Thanks to everyone for all the suggestions for Dreamweaver alternatives.

I've decided to go with Expression Web for now. It has faults, but it's the devil I know... so I can get a quick start without a learning curve.

Still plan to check out the several other options that were suggested. Thank you.

[W_J_T]

I_Hate_Subscriptions  wrote

I've decided to go with Expression Web for now.

Perhaps I am mistaken, but wasn't that discontinued or last updated like 5 years ago?

[W_J_T]

BenPleysier  wrote

• Just read an article in INN'twente where it states that Wappler is free of charge ... basic package
• If you want more, there are plenty of building blocks that can be purchased in a similar manner to Dreamweaver extensions.

Whelp if thats the case then the other shoe just dropped, pity because many wont be a customer having to buy features through add-ons.

What a shame they stuck with their extension model of paying for features separately and are not releasing a proper application at a defined cost with features. Sure they might get the existing DMXzone users and some additional Dreamweaver users, but they wont pull in the potential user numbers they could have with a proper application and pricing model.

Oh well, that's good news for Pinegrow.

Pinegrow for Dreamweaver Users – User Review | Pinegrow 4 – Documentation and Tutorials  ( @ rayek.elfin​ )

If there is something you would like to see in Pinegrow, have suggestions or feature requests to make, Pinegrow is currently conducting a product survey.

[BenPleysier]

rayek.elfin​ wrote in the article:

The nice thing about Pinegrow is that it is quickly integrated in your pipeline, and just makes life easier for the front-end coder.

That is where Wappler starts to shine, namely it is for front- and back-end coders.

[W_J_T]

BenPleysier  wrote

That is where Wappler starts to shine

How many extensions will that require a user to buy? LOL

Sorry, but they missed the boat choosing to remain with the extension model and not just building a comprehensive application and selling it at a cost.

[osgood_]

BenPleysier  wrote

rayek.elfin  wrote in the article:

The nice thing about Pinegrow is that it is quickly integrated in your pipeline, and just makes life easier for the front-end coder.

That is where Wappler starts to shine, namely it is for front- and back-end coders.

Back-end coders, maybe apart from you, Nancy and a few others who could hardly be called back-end coders aren't going to be using Wappler. There's probably half a million people worldwide that use their soultions, not many given the number of websites, but a small percentage of professionals. It probably caters for the ball that DW dropped, so they might add a few more.

However I think that charging by the 'block' is NOT going to work in their favour, especailly as they are appealing to non-professionals.

[Teodor K]

Hello,

I see some discussion about Wappler is going on around.

I won't announce anything specific yet, but i just wanted to clarify that you won't have to purchase separate extensions as it is now for DW and that is because of how DW functions...

So, in order to stop fake info spreading in this forum by people who have no idea what is going on - this is not what Wappler pricing will be:

W_J_T  wrote

What a shame they stuck with their extension model of paying for features separately and are not releasing a proper application at a defined cost with features.

W_J_T  wrote

How many extensions will that require a user to buy? LOL

Happy New Year to all!

Teodor Kuduschiev,

DMXzone.com / Wappler.io

[W_J_T]

https://forums.adobe.com/people/Teodor+K  wrote

• I won't announce anything specific yet, but i just wanted to clarify that you won't have to purchase separate extensions as it is now for DW and that is because of how DW functions...
• So, in order to stop fake info spreading in this forum by people who have no idea what is going on - this is not what Wappler pricing will be.

Maybe you quoted the wrong person. But if you are gonna try to call me out, I will respond with this.

Well not sure if fake, since it was reported by one of your pre-launch supporters and advocators, from an article your team posted about on your Blog.

BenPleysier  wrote

Just read an article in INN'twente where it states that Wappler is free of charge and that the basic package includes plenty of building blocks to make slideshows or interactive apps. If you want more, there are plenty of building blocks that can be purchased in a similar manner to Dreamweaver extensions.

Care to translate the article to English for us English speaking folks so we can see where BenPleysier​, misquoted it when he specifically said "can be purchased in a similar manner to Dreamweaver extensions". Please tell us why he would make such a statement if that is not what the article reported or the intended model?

Looking forward to your clarification then.

[rayek.elfin]

W_J_T  wrote

Care to translate the article to English for us English speaking folks so we can see where BenPleysier , misquoted it when he specifically said "can be purchased in a similar manner to Dreamweaver extensions". Please tell us why he would make such a statement if that is not what the article reported or the intended model?

Looking forward to your clarification then.

I happen to read Dutch. According to said article Wappler will be free, with additional building blocks requiring a subscription. From the Dutch original I understand that various additional building blocks will become available at different subscription levels. At least, it seems implied that the user may have access to at least a couple of subscription options.

{Personal note: yet another rent to pay? I'd never go for that. At least products such as Pinegrow are available as a perpetual license.)

Here is a direct rough and ugly translation of the original text to make up your own minds:

---------------------------------

George Petrov

Wappler

Product: a tool to very simply, wholly visually, build websites and mobile apps

'We have worked for a very long time in Adobe's shadow. We delivered products to Adobe which are used world-wide by web designers and developers. But we were always dependent on Adobe and their technical progress went too slow for us.

We listened to our clients: which needs do they have when they build a website or mobile app? From those [needs] Wappler was born: a new, smart and visual system that may be used by truly anyone to build a site or web [? literal translation]. [Wappler] runs on Windows machines, but also [runs] on Linux or on a Mac.

Creative people were often limited by technology when using existing products on the market. They'd run into all sorts of limitations after coming up with this splendid idea. Wappler [on the other hand] gives free reign to your creativity. And it is user friendly, sort-of [like] Lego building blocks. It's simply stated just glueing block together: anyone can do it.

Wappler is free and the base edition provides enough building blocks to create a beautiful site which includes for example slideshows, or an interactive app. If you wish to add more [functionality] you have the option to purchase additional building blocks through a subscription.

Competition? I am not afraid of [competitors]. We already have a world-wide community (DMX Zone) of half a million web designers and developers. Other [competitors] won't be building [a community like ours] anytime soon.'

-------------------------------

[osgood_]

rayek.elfin  wrote

W_J_T   wrote

Care to translate the article to English for us English speaking folks so we can see where BenPleysier  , misquoted it when he specifically said "can be purchased in a similar manner to Dreamweaver extensions". Please tell us why he would make such a statement if that is not what the article reported or the intended model?

Looking forward to your clarification then.

I happen to read Dutch. According to said article Wappler will be free, with additional building blocks requiring a subscription. From the Dutch original I understand that various additional building blocks will become available at different subscription levels. At least, it seems implied that the user may have access to at least a couple of subscription options.

{Personal note: yet another rent to pay? I'd never go for that. At least products such as Pinegrow are available as a perpetual license.)

Here is a direct rough and ugly translation of the original text to make up your own minds:

---------------------------------

George Petrov

Wappler

Product: a tool to very simply, wholly visually, build websites and mobile apps

'We have worked for a very long time in Adobe's shadow. We delivered products to Adobe which are used world-wide by web designers and developers. But we were always dependent on Adobe and their technical progress went too slow for us.

We listened to our clients: which needs do they have when they build a website or mobile app? From those [needs] Wappler was born: a new, smart and visual system that may be used by truly anyone to build a site or web [? literal translation]. [Wappler] runs on Windows machines, but also [runs] on Linux or on a Mac.

Creative people were often limited by technology when using existing products on the market. They'd run into all sorts of limitations after coming up with this splendid idea. Wappler [on the other hand] gives free reign to your creativity. And it is user friendly, sort-of [like] Lego building blocks. It's simply stated just glueing block together: anyone can do it.

Wappler is free and the base edition provides enough building blocks to create a beautiful site which includes for example slideshows, or an interactive app. If you wish to add more [functionality] you have the option to purchase additional building blocks through a subscription.

Competition? I am not afraid of [competitors]. We already have a world-wide community (DMX Zone) of half a million web designers and developers. Other [competitors] won't be building [a community like ours] anytime soon.'

-------------------------------

KInd of scary....anyone can do it.......but how good are the results! Sounds like anyone wishing to develop cheap and cheeful websites (of which there are many) this is the product for you. Creative people meaning, non profesional web-developers. Kind of an advanced Muse maybe.

What do I know, it might be superb and FREE for anyone who can code, a win win situation.

Now all I have to do is update my Mac as Im sure its not going to run on anything less than Capitan.

[W_J_T]

Thanks for taking time to provide the translation.

Perhaps Teodor didn't want to scare English speakers and reveal the mention of yet another subscription based model or fragmented features through this approach. Between that and the seemingly arrogant tone regarding competition and being able to retain their own customers, I am not impressed.

[rayek.elfin]

Wappler could be the answer to designers' prayers, or yet another web-tech based application like so many others. We'll see. As stated by the developers here, the initial version will have very limited GUI customization, which would be a deal-breaker for me, alongside rent-based business models.

Having said all that, at the very least I see potential for it to become a good prototyping tool. If quick database interactions can be set up in minutes with a presentable interface - that would be nice. 

[osgood_]

BenPleysier  wrote

I for one know that there are many developers in other forums, like DMXZone, PVII and Webassist that use Dreamweaver because of its extensibility.

They are NOT professional developers. Professional developers don't need such outlets.

Fact is pretty much all of the developers who have youtube channels who are any good in my opinion won't be using DW.

I personally don't know why - could it be it's priced itself out of the market? Why do the majority of good developers use FREE software. In the bigger picture IF you do this for a living and you make money then you should be able to afford £240.00 a year for a bit of software, if its any good. I think its different for those who are hobbyists or only use DW ocassionally given the state of how many are in debt and can't even put a roof over their heads despite they having jobs to be expected to find such money on a regular basis.

IF DW was a product thought of as a serious web editor the majority of professional web-developers would use it regardless of cost, just like the majority of graphic designers use InDesign or Quark because they have a reputation for being the best tools to use, obviously DW doesn't have the same reputation, why is that?

[WolfShade]

osgood_  wrote

BenPleysier   wrote

I for one know that there are many developers in other forums, like DMXZone, PVII and Webassist that use Dreamweaver because of its extensibility.

They are NOT professional developers. Professional developers don't need such outlets.

Your assumption (still haven't provided proof of your claim) is incorrect.  I am a professional developer (United States Gov't, Dept. of Defense), and I use DW.  I insist primarily because I hate CFB, but also because DW has a lot to offer us professional developers as far as completing code, editing tags, etc. (I don't use design view, at all, strictly code view, so any drag-n-drop features are useless, to me.)

IN ANY CASE, this is off topic from the original thread (Subscription costs, not what is the best IDE).  Everyone has an opinion about DW.  If you like it, use it.  If you don't like it, don't use it.  Simple as that.

V/r,

^ _ ^

[osgood_]

You're in the minority. I have provided proof of my claim. In my relentless research to understand this web stuff l watch myriads of you tube developer channels. I can only name one where DW is being used by who l would consider a serious developer. There may be others of course but the majority right now seem to be jumping onboard VC code, a few use Atom and Sublime.

Infact l dont see many using a paid for editor at all like DW, SlickEdit or Php Storm and the rest which l kind of find quite strange. Why in the eyes of many professional developers who must be earning a few quid do they gravitate in large numbers to the free editors. One thing for sure is they obviously have no need for products which are frequently mentioned in this forum

From a personal point of view apart from being overpriced for what it offers l think DW is just another web editor, they are all the  same to a coder really. If you can code you can use any editor. Where I do think DW differs is it has built a reputation for attracting non coders, amatuers and quite a few older coders, some in their 80s. It may well be a factor which keeps the professional away from DW. I cant see that changing anytime soon.