Adobe Missing Out On $25,000,000 Annual Muse Revenue Due to Basic Oversight

[Christo14]

If Adobe offered a competitively priced hosting platform, such as an option to sign up for a Muse hosting package as an option in upload to ftp, and by that I mean competitive with the standard hosting providers out there, I would use the service.

After all we are looking for easier solutions all the time, are we not?

Why not transition Business Catalyst to a more cost effective price range?

Or provide a simple hosting option via BC or a stand alone service?

I didn't use BC because my customers didn't want pay for it.

I didn't build sites with template-based services because most of my customers had been down that path and found they got stuck with the feature limitations or felt they were mislead by the pricing structures.

I thought Adobe would be in prime position to beat those 'other options' at their own game.

A reported 500,000 Muse sites in action right now and Adobe has very little to none of that hosting market because they don't [didn't] provide a relevant service.

My math says if Muse had a simple hosting service built in at say, $50yr, and they snagged those 500,000 websites, they'd generate $25,000,000 in turnover ANNUALLY.

Even if they got half of that it would still add a nice $12,500,000. Surely enough to pay for the development team, and an annual end of year party?

Can't help but think someone’s making a big booboo here.

[pziecina]

You are missing a few esential points.

1. The cost of building, maintaining and security of the servers.
2. The cost of not only the Muse development team, but managment, marketing and support services.
3. Not all Muse sites will be active, in that over 80% of web sites become zombie sites within the first year.
4. Adobe never said it was a financial decission, but one of Muses relevance in the modern web.

I will admit it has always surprised me that Adobe never got into the Cloud in a big way, but with all the competion, such as Amazon, Microsoft, Google, Apple, (to name a few) it was probably a wise decission.

[W_J_T]

Christo14  wrote

if Muse had a simple hosting service built in at say, $50yr, and they snagged those 500,000 websites, they'd generate $25,000,000 in turnover annually.

Sure some web stat sites declare they find 500,000 Muse sites online. So with that as an example (like you used) if each designer only makes 1 site, thats 500,000 users. If each designer makes 10 sites thats 50,000 users, 20 sites each equals 25,000 users. So you can imagine the "average" if the 500k statistic is correct, the average would make that overall user number substantially less.

So you can easily see how your projected math and profits can quickly diminish. Also understand above all else that Adobe and its investors are all about revenue. If it was as easy or as financially viable as you declared then they certainly would have done it. But they ran the numbers and reviewed the business strategy and decided in the end to EOL Muse.

pziecina  wrote

Adobe never said it was a financial decission, but one of Muses relevance in the modern web.

Then there is that.

[saraha76990856]

We should sue Adobe Muse. I will need to rebuild every Adobe website I've built, Adobe is no longer offering support on MUSE as of over a month ago, we've all been duped and ripped off. I'm looking into contacting a lawyer. I think we should all sue them. IN THE VERY LEAST, ADOBE SHOULD RETURN EVERYONE'S MONEY.   sarah.the.outlier@gmail.com