Skip navigation
Currently Being Moderated

Pay for InContext ???

Mar 19, 2009 1:33 AM

When the time past and Adobe bought the Macromedia (18 April 2005) there was a couple of major questions about Macromedia's products futures in Adobe's hands.

What did just happen since that time was actually very satisfying as all of them became more stronger day by day.

Adobe introduced many other new features which are very useful for every of us who do use those software's for different reasons.

Adobe InContext Editing was one of the greatest feature which came with the Dreamweaver and let web developers create "Editable Regions" in their home pages to edit those areas via regular major web browsers.
There is no charge for the moment for Adobe InContext Editing service.

for people who do currently use Adobe InContext Editing in their web pages.

The Question is " Will Adobe Charge People For InContext Editing?"

Answer is very important for many of those users who did integrated InContext in their sites as they use it free for the moment.
Here is an official answer from Adobe

How much does InContext Editing cost?
While in free preview, InContext Editing is available at no charge. The final pricing for the service has not been determined; however, it will be offered as a monthly or annual subscription with a price of US$10 to US$20 per month. Use of the service will likely be limited to five domains, and users will be able to add domains for an additional fee. The service may be bundled with other value-added services for web professionals. It is up to web professionals how they charge their clients for the service.


Yeah US$10 or US20$, which will become US$120 or US$240 a year for limited domains (maybe 3 domains) and additional fee for more.

Do You Think This Charging Is Fair?
Do you think you can make ur clients pay that money?
Do you think Dreamweaver should have build in paid features?
Do you think you are going to buy it?
Do you think CushyCMS (which makes the same job for free) can not handle the same thing for you?
Do you think you are going to buy DW for US$699 and pay more for InContext or should be inContext for always free as Adobe will not host nothing for us expect of ftp connection information and a couple of line connection reports?

Please let us about your honest opinion...

The same inquiry is posted on too.

Thank you all who do share their own opinions on this topic...
Replies 1 2 3 ... 8 Previous Next
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Mar 30, 2009 4:48 AM   in reply to [S]up
    This is really driving me mad.

    I would develop simple sites for my clients and they nearly always ask for a content management facility. So I have been implementing different systems over the years depending on their requirements.

    When InContext came out I thought that this was just fantastic. It was an easy to setup and easy to use system. Changes are made from within the actual browser and not some form that looks a million miles from what the page looks like. And of course it bypasses the upload of scripts to the hosting server that never work first time round and take days to get working correctly.

    The only reason I bought Dreamweaver CS4 was because of InContext. The online videos and literature from Adobe convinced me to buy this new version. Otherwise CS3 would have done just fine for the foreseeable future. I have been working on existing sites and have priced for new work based on the InContext addition to Dreamweaver.

    By chance at the weekend I found out that this service will eventually have a monthly charge that has yet to be determined. So I now have to remove the InContext work that I have already done and re-price the work that I am going for, which will probably mean that I will loose it. All the work that I have done so far with InContext are on websites that I do not host. It is once off work. So if there is an ongoing fee that I must pay and I cannot re-coup it, then this means that I cannot use InContext. To be honest with you most of the sites that I would be using it for would contain a small amount of content that would only need to be updated every couple of months, like a newsletter section.

    So the advertised new feature of Dreamweaver CS4 ends up to be an extra that will cost HUNDREDS of dollars every year into infinity. This has to be the biggest mistake Adobe have ever made. This is only going to turn people away from Adobe products and lead them to find other companies that will provide the same product/service but give it as an included service with their software.

    Let's face it Dreamweaver is NOT cheap and Adobe doing this is just going to drive a wedge between Adobe and its ever shrinking loyal clientele.
    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 7, 2009 8:38 AM   in reply to [S]up

    I have registred some of my clients to InContextEditing because it is really cool for them.  But when I discovered we will have to pay for that, I told them they wil be charged if they want to keep it.  THEY ARE NOT INTERESTED  and it seems it is cheaper if I do the editing myself.  So I won't offer this service anymore.

    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 7, 2009 9:03 AM   in reply to [S]up

    Yep.. I totally agree with all the above. Most of my clients simply will NOT pay for this simple service.  As long as it remains free, I can justify our time costs, but if they start charging money, I will discontinue the service.


    I find that the minimal changes most clients require, cost us very little time & money as it is... I would rather just do the updates in house. There are too many FREE solutions that fit most users needs. If they need a full featured comercial solution... I would go with Expression Engine all the way. Their yearly cost is less than $40!!! And they get a whole lot more.


    -Tommy Logic

    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 8, 2009 5:54 PM   in reply to [S]up

    Unreal, we were swayed from using a text editor and purchased DreamWeaver CS4 because of the supposed "included" content manager InContext, for our clients that desired to make simple edits. Apperantly we should have gone with Joomla or Drupal. Now we'll have to explain Adobe's surreptitious marketing tactic of "hook'em and bleed'em!" We will be sure to inform every client about Adobe's game. BAD move — especially after Grant Collaborative worked so hard to straighten out this company's very disconjoined departments and recreate a new unified Adobe brand. Adobe marketing should remember Ivan Pavlov's classical conditioning paradigm. One thing is for sure, were all going to be a little more timid to embrace any "new" technologies from Adobe henceforth, for fear of the shock afterward!


    Remember this — inform your clients. Word of mouth is very powerful.

    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 8, 2009 11:39 PM   in reply to [S]up



    I live in Switzerland so I checked site, and there I am told that CS4 allows the owner of the website to update it without my intervention as a webmaster, exactly what I need! So I bought DW CS4 precisely because of the CMS option.


    How disappointing!


    I now realise that:

    1. It is not yet available for my country and no release date is mentioned by Adobe

    2. There will be an extra fee for the option

    3. The extra fee will be a recurring charge


    I have the bad feeling I have been cheated by Adobe. The ad is misleading, it should say:


    US Webmasters only: Design your pages in Dreamweaver so end users can edit their web pages, for an additional recurring charge,  without help from you or additional software using the InContext Editing online service.


    It doesn't look that great all of a sudden, does it?


    Out of the 3 reasons of disappointment that I mentioned, the one I find worst is the recurring charge. It links you forever with your customer with a charge that you have to pass on, taking additional risks of getting bad debts. Besides you have to buy batches of 5 domains: you need 1, you buy 5 and pay for the other 4 until you have found another customer who needs CMS and is ready to pay for it recurringly! Adobe is supposed to provide high-quality tools for professionals, not to make their financials difficult.


    To make it short:

    Such a misleading ad is NOT ACCEPTABLE

    A recurring fee is NOT ACCEPTABLE



    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 10, 2009 9:25 AM   in reply to [S]up

    ^^^  I think that about sums it up. ^^^^


    Today I made a decision for the company. We will no longer publish ANY pages for use with InContext Editing.


    This completely releases the need to update any machines to CS4, saving us thousands of dollars. I recommend that everyone testing CS4 specifically for the purpose of InConext editing... DO NOT WASTE THE MONEY ON CS4. It sounds like a money pit that you will be forced to dump an untold amount of money into.


    Until Adobe makes a final decision on the cost of the "service" we canot effectively forcast our budgets. I will on the otherhand continue to sell Contribute, as it works well in our workflow. I still have clients who use Contribute from 5 years ago on a one time purchase $79 license...


    But to be honest there, if we're required to build a template for simple flat sites, we'll continue to concentrate our efforts on the FREE alternatives such as Joomla, Wordpress & CushyCMS. I migrated that direction just because a $199 License is a burden for my company to sell. With so many free alternatives, clients just won't pay for it anymore... and I can't see them paying a vague $10~20ish per month.






    We will continue to test InContext Editing for inhouse purposes only in an effort to contribute our experiences to the ongoing development and progress of Adobe Labs. Should Adobe decide to come up with a solid pricing plan, I will pass it on to our clients and offer it as a product.


    You never know when a client just wants to dump a truckload of money.

    Mark as:
  • Currently Being Moderated
    Apr 10, 2009 10:28 AM   in reply to [S]up

    Updated since hitting tab on the browser submited the form.



    Hi everyone,


    I would like to start by thanking everyone for this feedback which is really useful for us as we want to make sure we define a valuable offer for you.


    To summarize your concerns, I'd say that following pain points can be identified:

    1. Although advertised as a Dreamweaver CS4 feature, it is not clear enough that the editing service will be a paid service
    2. Regional sites do not clearly explan the fact that service is available only in NA and is English only
    3. Planned service price seems high


    I'd like to write a few lines about motivations or intentions for everyone of these items and open-up the discussion. Your feedback is welcomed and I think none of my colleagues will take personally.


    1. Paid Dreamweaver feature?
      1. Not really. We intend to run the service as a standalone editing service. However, we want or intend to give Dreamweaver users some integration features that would help them create editable websites faster, using Dreamweaver's design view and InContext Editing commands. This was the message we tried to send, but seems that it needs more clarity.
    2. Regional sites do not clearly explain the fact that service is available only in NA and is English only
      1. I took a closer look at those websites I would say that could be improved. On each site the service page explains the fact that is only available in English and then includes a link that redirects visitors to the US English website. However, on the Dreamweaver main page, the link to the feature sends visitors directly on the US service page. We would try to improve this.
      1. Planned service price seems high
        1. Well, what's for sure, is that it will not be free.
        2. However, we need your feedback regarding what do you think it will make the service a valuable tool for you and your customers
        3. I don't know what to say about Expression Engine, since paying $249 for commercial version, means $125 in two years; not to speak about wanting more modules;
        4. It's true that there are a lot of free CMS's and we cannot and do not want to compete with them. However, we want to think that you'd use InContext Editing service on simpler websites, where the integration cost of these solutions is not justifiable.
        5. As for $10-20 for your customers - that's not true. This is the cost for you, and it includes five domains. It's up to you how much you charge your customers.


      I'd like to hear your comments related to pricing and how do you think or would like to see as options.


      Thank you,




      Message was edited by: Cristinel Anastasoaie

      Mark as:
    3. Currently Being Moderated
      Apr 10, 2009 3:47 PM   in reply to cristinel@adobe

      Here are my thoughts regarding whether InContext Editing will be a worthy investment for me and my client. I currently have only one client who could benefit from InContext. The annual maintenance charge to my client potentially eliminated by InContext is about $300.


      Assuming a $20/month fee ($240 per year) for InContext passed on to my client, my client would normally save $60 per year. But if I take into account the one-time labor cost of $150 for converting the site to InContext, my client actually would end up losing $90 the first year! I couldn't recommend the service to my client at $20/month. In fact, if the fee turns out to be $20/month, I not only would have to reject Adobe's service, but also probably charge my client to dismantle the InContext-enabled pages. The client loses twice!


      Assuming a $10/month fee ($120 per year), the client potentially saves $30 the first year, and $180 during subsequent years. I consider this a minimally-acceptable savings.


      I realize that if I had more clients I could spread the Adobe fee around but, in my current situation, I would not be able to pay a subscription fee higher than $10/month. A fee of $5/month would be more reasonable.


      I imagine that most of our clients are small businesses who, in these economically-challenging times, are looking for every opportunity to save money. I am not skilled in PHP, databases, or other content management tools, so I can't realistically market my services to new clients unless I can offer some rudimentary content management such as that provided by InContext Editing. (But I don't wish to eat the cost of a high InContext subscription while I look for more clients.)  Others have mentioned Joomla, etc., as economical alternatives. Adobe should consider these factors when it decides on its fee structure.

      Mark as:
    4. Currently Being Moderated
      Apr 10, 2009 4:29 PM   in reply to antlion

      Expression Engine is like InContext x 1000 and worth every penny if it meets the clients needs.What you are offering is nothing more than CushyCMS for $240 per year. Thats my point. You're adding a class that enables editing. PERIOD. The worse part is that we all know this price will increase with time as all Adobe products do..


      You're asking us as developers to promote and sell a service with little to no incentive to us. You say.. "charge whatever you like for the service" which translates to "sell our product for us and next year we'll charge you 20% more to make it convenient for you"


      The service you are offering is already done, and done well, and it's free. What's the incentive to us? Seems like we should at least get 3 free with our login. Or maybe since we're all here as you guinea pigs, testing your BETA product, you could give us a little something. I mean, Jesuits Chrust, we already shelled out how many hundreds of dollars... That's kind of our point. I mean, are you going to start charging for Spry Widgets too? I bet Adobe sunk a lot more money in that than they did in a remade CushyCMS with a convenient "Insert" Button.

      Mark as:
    5. Currently Being Moderated
      Apr 11, 2009 4:28 PM   in reply to Tommy Logic

      Hi Everyone...

      I really liked reading everyone's opinion and feel that I can ad very little. But, from a monetary only, NO WAY!

      Do You Think This Charging Is Fair? NO
      Do you think you can make ur clients pay that money? Maybe
      Do you think Dreamweaver should have build in paid features? YES
      Do you think you are going to buy it? Probably
      Do you think CushyCMS (which makes the same job for free) can not handle the same thing for you? Not Sure
      Do you think you are going to buy DW for US$699 and pay more for In Context or should be inContext for always free as Adobe will not host nothing for us expect of ftp connection information and a couple of line connection reports? NOT SURE

      Thanks for the information.

      SEO Seattle - Search Engine Optimization

      Mark as:
    6. Currently Being Moderated
      Apr 12, 2009 4:17 AM   in reply to cristinel@adobe

      Hello Cristinel,


      thanks a lot for your feed-back.

      Regarding costs, I think our customers are willing to pay more for a CMS site than for a regular site, but if they choose to do the updates themselves, it is precisely to get rid of a recurring charge and avoid any kind of dependency towards a webmaster. That's why I think that having a webmaster charge them recurringly is precisely what everybody wants to avoid.


      Besides, invoicing small amounts recurringly is certainly not what Adobe wants to get into. International recurring billing of small amounts is a hassle, and Adobe is not a telecom company.It is also an exposure to bad debts for both webmasters and Adobe.


      To summarise, recurring billing is:

      1. precisely what our customers want to avoid with CMS

      2. exposing webmasters to bad debts

      3. not a good financial move for Adobe


      So please, don't go into this.


      I truly think that Incontext should be a option included in Dreamweaver, but giving stuff away for free is not what Adobe normally does, we all know that.


      I would agree to pay a one-time fee per domain, but anything above 50$ per domain would be totally unreasonable.


      Mark as:
    7. Currently Being Moderated
      Apr 12, 2009 8:57 AM   in reply to cocoon2345



      I think Sara's observations and proposal are extremely thoughtful (and much better articulated than my comments above). Clients want a CMS precisely because eliminates or reduces maintenance (and recurring fees). (I had to turn down two clients last year because I wasn't equipped for CMS.) If Adobe decides to charge for InContext, I agree with Sara that the ideal InContext fee would be a small one-time charge that designers could include as part of their initial design/setup charges to the client. (Designers would need to pay the fee only as they add clients who want the service.)

      Mark as:
    8. Currently Being Moderated
      Apr 12, 2009 9:42 AM   in reply to antlion



      In reponse to : " I'd like to hear your comments related to pricing and how do you think or would like to see as options. "


      I agree with both above in that they were perhaps better articulated. We just feel that it could be implemented better than their current pricing scheme.


      We've been shooting this around the office a bit & here's what we came up with.

      • Developer / Designer: Unlimited accounts for setup, and maintenance under our Adobe login. Since we purchased the initial product (Dreamweaver,etc.) and set up the client to use the service provided by Adobe we should be able to have free access to the InContext Service.

      • End User / Customer: Sign up fee when they register for their account (when we send them an invitation). The client will have a 30/60 day trial and then have the option of signing up for a recurring fee. This takes the burden off the developer for collecting / selling aditional Adobe services. Adobe can charge whatever they feel necessary.


      I think Adobe is probably more adept in these practices and has the capabilities in place to monitor customer loyalty, marketing strategies, etc. Their marketing department then has the ability to promote additional products to those that are willing to pay for "subscription based" services. This completely removes the burden from the developer and opens a door to a whole new market for Adobe. The designer / developer simply has the choice of setting it up & sending Adobe SOLID sales leads. This might be a much better arrangement & MUCH more fair.


      Any thoughts???



      *** Further Thoughts ***

      How would Adobe implement this? EASY:

      • When the developer sets up the site for InContext Editing, they add a Key to the HEAD of the front page. This gives Adobe a means of insuring the developer authenticates a site.
      • Adobe allows only ONE (  incentive { free: important!;  width:100%; }   ) Administrator Account per site and that goes to the developer.
      • Adobe charges whomever it is that registers Publisher Accounts. This gives the developer the choice of selling the service to the client or enables the client to make their own decision.



      • Developer can setup and test sites freely. This is important because we need the ability to change or modify the editable regions and user preferences at any given moment.
      • Adobe still collects their fee, and probably more than what we could individually.
      • Adobe has a direct line to new sales leads that developers probably couldn't take advantage of.
      • Adobe builds a relationship with developers that turns them into Adobe sales reps. with distinct, MEASURABLE incentives to both parties.


      Message was edited by: Tommy Logic


      Any thoughts on that???

      Mark as:
    9. Currently Being Moderated
      Apr 18, 2009 2:17 AM   in reply to [S]up

      Good Discussion Guys !!!


      What is this paying thing about the Adobe InContext Editing?

      What they gonna charge us for?

      They charge for the new Feature?  ( Isn't it their job to present us new features so there will be a reason to buy Adobe products? )


      Should never use it in my codes...

      Mark as:
    10. Currently Being Moderated
      Apr 21, 2009 5:06 AM   in reply to [S]up

      I can't believe this!


      I just realized today, that the incontent editing wil become a paid service!

      That is absolutely ridicolous.

      It would actually be cheaper for people to buy Contribute, and use that for editing, to use this, much more simple, service.

      I have used incontent editing on two customer websites, which only have the demand for editing their site a few times a year. Therefore it was to expensiv, and an overkill to use Contribute.

      If it becomes a paid service, I will for sure look into some of the CMS alternatives stated by some of the others in this discussion...

      Mark as:
    11. Currently Being Moderated
      Apr 21, 2009 5:15 PM   in reply to freak_dk

      InContext Editing is a great idea. Not knowing how much it will cost, under what terms, or even whent the decision will be made is killing it. If the price is small enough, I can pass it on to the clients as a value-added service. In no way would I want them to have to pay Adobe directly. I know they will not. It will be hard enough getting them to register. From what I've seen in many ways of doing it, is that clients want a neatly-wrapped single-source solution, completely integrated and mindless.


      Is there any prospect of getting real answers soon?

      Mark as:
    12. Currently Being Moderated
      Apr 22, 2009 7:16 AM   in reply to BCDoherty

      "I can pass it on to the clients as a value-added service. In no way would I want them to have to pay Adobe directly. I know they will not. It will be hard enough getting them to register. From what I've seen in many ways of doing it, is that clients want a neatly-wrapped single-source solution, completely integrated and mindless."


      I disagree in that it will be an easy "bundled" sale... with today's marketplace, I think that anything that increases our overhead makes it more difficult. As stated by several others, multiple times before, there are WAY too many free options available.


      I Agree with the fact that its almost impossible to get a client to even register for a service.. Given that alone, I think if Adobe wants to charge for features, and their marketing geniuses think they can pull it off.. then they should charge the proper market; the end user. Either way about it, it is going to be a sales point for someone; I just happen to believe that Adobe stands to gain the most from this "feature" and they therefore should also be the one to sell this "feature"... but we're not buying it. We bought it already... 8 licenses @ $499 EACH!!!

      Mark as:
    13. Currently Being Moderated
      Apr 23, 2009 9:29 PM   in reply to [S]up

      InContext is a great idea, but the price should be already included into DW price. This is where it is starting to become a little evil...


      Some clients need to just tweak just a couple of sentenses in a month or two - that's not a very good reason to pay another similar to hosting fee.


      I would definitely use it for all my clients if it wasn't paid service, but I doubt any client would like to sign up for another monthly fee... so I know I would never use it if it was paid service, there's way too many beautiful open source CMS out there that clients would much rather preffer, rather than paying for editing words on their very own web site...

      Mark as:
    14. Currently Being Moderated
      Apr 24, 2009 3:44 AM   in reply to Eddie Lobanovskiy

      I agree about clients not wanting to sign up for another fee, which is why we would have to bundle it into the client price. I could see offering this feature to a client for a small additional fee - as a new level of hosting option, perhaps even absorbing some of the cost to make it palatable.


      The biggest attraction I see to ICE is the WYSIWYG editing it offers (subject to developer constraints). I haven't seen this is any CMS. The browser interface is also far less threatening to a client, one less new thing to learn and screw up.


      I need a service like this that is transparent to the user, so they have nothing to do. I am not always within reach of a client, so if they get into trouble - even with the registering - there may be no direct way for me to bail them out. If a client can do something wrong, they will. Murphy's law again. Even if it means extra work for me, I would feel more comfortable registering the client myself, and being able to say to the client - here it is. sit at your browser, log in and edit away.

      Mark as:
    15. Currently Being Moderated
      Apr 24, 2009 1:33 PM   in reply to BCDoherty

      I see where you coming from BCDoherty, I would definitely prefer paying a little more for the software once, and not to bug clients or stress myself over creating new paid accounts. Good idea, but it needs to make sense payment wise.


      If you go into monthly payments, than might as well have a counter on DW for how many sites you can build, and charge per site, for folks that don't use InContext* . Simply not fair, you must agree, I think fee should be hidden in DW License Price, + bragged about this super cool feature comparing it to all other HTML visual & nonvisual editors... Just a thought.

      Mark as:
    16. Currently Being Moderated
      May 1, 2009 6:52 AM   in reply to [S]up

      I have installed InContect on several sites and I must say I cannot recommend it if it becomes a paid service. I discussed it with many more customers indicating that it may cost $5/month in the future. None of them was willing to even try it out for this price. The one customer who is using it frequently has losts of trouble. First, an automated security update on her computer updated IE which disabled InContext. I told her to install Firefox. While this may seem easy to us, it was a hassle for her. As soon as she got access to her site again, the upgrade of InContext diabled font color changes. Needless to say, she is not excited.


      Another customer tried it and InContect created hooorrrrible code on his site. Stacked div tags 10 levels deep. (There was H1 tag and he hit "enter" repeatedly. He was not able to start a simple new paragraph.) I had to download the site and clean it up with Dreamweaver. Will the customer pay for my time? No way, he feels I suggested an inferior product.


      In closing, we web designers will have to clean up and trouble shoot sites that get ruined with WYSIWYG edtitors and customers will never be willing to pay for that tedious task. The only way it makes sense to me is if I can keep a customer for the bigger tasks and let him play with his site in between. Paying a fee on top of that trouble is just not an option.


      To make my life even more difficult, there is no code view option were I can quickly fix little things for customers. I have to download the page, edit it and reupload and test. Way too much work for nothing.....

      Mark as:
    17. Currently Being Moderated
      Apr 30, 2009 8:23 PM   in reply to [S]up

      I have three concerns about InContext, cost, stability, product availability.


      First, the proposed charge of $120 - $240 annually is only for 5 web sites. I have not seen anything regarding how much will be charged for additional sites. I have about 40 sites where I think InContext would be worthwhile for clients posting emergency notices. I would assume the incremental cost over the basic five sites would be less than the basic charge, but Adobe has given no indication other than there will be a per site charge after the basic 5 sites. Will there be a limit to the number of sites that we can enroll? I don't want to start something and then discover I cannot add additional clients because the live product offering has un upper limit to the number of sites or the incremental pricing is too high.


      Second, is that the production code be stable and avoid problems such as locking people out if a browser is updated. Today, I had to have a client using Firefox clear out his cookies file so he could edit a page after he logged in but I consider those type of problems part of the beta..


      Third, it is important to be able to give us a definitive target date for going live. We cannot make any plans or decisions regarding whether we will actually use the product if it does not have a release date. It forces us to look for alternatives. I do understand the concept of Beta Tests and have been on both sides of the fence numerous times. My concern is that an open-ended beta test (the way it appears now) is often times a product the never reaches actual production status.


      Finally, I believe the concept of a one-time fixed initial licence charge is a great idea. Personally, I happen to be a fan of Adobe products and have used their products for years, but have also found other products where Adobe fell short of our needs. Hopefully, this will not be one of those times.


      M. Enyeart

      Mark as:
    18. Currently Being Moderated
      May 7, 2009 9:48 AM   in reply to [S]up

      Discovered the incredible InContext Editing service today, with many small clients unable to afford and unwilling to learn more involved CMS this service seemed to solve many problems.


      But alas have just realised the service will carry a monthly or annual fee and there is no way I will be able to pay this cost on, so for me i'll have to put InContext Editing on the shelf and let it gather dust.


      What a shame!!

      Mark as:
    19. Currently Being Moderated
      May 9, 2009 4:21 AM   in reply to [S]up

      I just have to comment from the other side of the fence... I'm the end user that has had my website controlled by "Web Guys" for years. We are in the night club business & promote weekly events on our site. Over the last 6 years I have not found 1 that can keep up with our needs without it being very costly & frustrating. So you live and you learn... to the point where I took over creating the graphics for the promotions, taking control of the event & gallery uploads, teaching my self to create my own in house DVD promo's, (I'm all Mac & love iLife/iWorks09).

      So after the last guy going on vacation for 3 weeks & not able to update the pages I had no access to, I decided to take our website into my control. I had the old CS Suite package but decided to upgrade Photoshop to CS4 & purchased Dreamweaver CS4 as well. I was looking to dive right in to teaching myself the most efficient, simple & economical way to maintain and promote the business thru our website.

      Then last week was the first time that I came across InContext! Until I saw this discussion, I was elated that it was part of Dreamweaver. Even had no idea they were going to charge for it... But... looking back on what we have paid thru the years for others maintaining our site & that I am saving close to $26,000 over the next 4 years doing it myself... I would be glad to pay InContext $50 a month to simplify the time it takes to maintain my site so I can spend more time enjoying life! Come on really, as much as you all charge, adding $5, $10, even $20 a month... do you really think your clients will complain if they can update their sites whenever they like, that easily without relying on you?

      Mark as:
    20. Currently Being Moderated
      May 13, 2009 2:41 PM   in reply to [S]up

      Like a lot of other people, I have been getting increasinglingly frustrated and alarmed at Adobe's aggressive upgrading policy and so when I saw that they were offering InContext with CS4 I thought - Ah, they are giving us something back for the thousands of pounds we have spent on their products. When I discovered they were going to charge for it, it felt shabby.

      I have a reseller account with a company (TSO Host) that provides my customers with cPanel, which has better web page editing facilities, for free, than InContext. Why on earth should I or my customers pay?

      Also there is a resistance to monthly charges which a one off fee does not attract. That is why DW extension companies like WebAssist do so well - pay once and use it for ever as many times as you like. OK, I realise server time is involved here, but that psychological barrier is still there. And why pay for someone else's server time when you are already running a server for your clients? Contribute makes more sense.

      Including InContext on the splash screen of DW CS4 without making it clear it will have to be paid for eventually is barrow-boy stuff and not what you expect from a company that, lets face it, makes superb software.

      DW have dropped a clanger here and I hope they have the sense to either withdraw it or make it free.




      Mark as:
    21. Currently Being Moderated
      May 16, 2009 12:19 PM   in reply to [S]up

      I must share the disbelief of many people who posted here before me.


      As creative suite owner i expected in-context editing to come as a bonus. After checking it seeing how simple it was I was positive it is a bonus, since indeed, there is a lot of advanced and even free quality CMSs out there.


      I'm just glad I stumbled upon this post before I connected any of my clients to this feature.


      If feature would be WORKING and with minimal bugs, like a normal working feature, I'd be willing to pay a reasonable one-time fee for unlimited use of it.  But nothing more than 100 € for a working version of the system as it is now. Since it's quite modest, though with a nice easy to use layout, it's really a very basic system unless i'm missing something.


      Anyway, personally I'll rather stick to some alternative. I will check in a while and see what has happened with this adobe's feature.


      And yes, the recurring charge per site or even per 5 sites thats just too much hassle if nothing else.


      And as people before me pointed the CMS systems are supposed to empower end users and also in the long term relieve them of expenses of site updating by web masters, so this is kinda ridiculous proposal, to be honest, what are you guys at adobe thinking with implementing a recurring charge concept then?

      Mark as:
    22. Currently Being Moderated
      May 16, 2009 3:29 PM   in reply to [S]up

      If Adobe chooses to charge for InContext, I definitely will have to drop it.  There are other options out there I'm not afraid to use, since I don't want to be nickeled and dimed to death!

      Mark as:
    23. Currently Being Moderated
      May 19, 2009 2:09 PM   in reply to [S]up

      Wow.. 1666 views. Can you guys at Adobe put a Poll on here?? I think it would be interesting to weigh the active participants in this form alone and measure the percentage that would actually vote that they would pay.


      Maybe put an active poll out for "Publishers & Editors" and see if they would pay if their developer would agree to include this service.


      I'm still not seeing any incentive for the developer is my point. Especially those of us that spend a LOT of time working with Adobe to make this BETA "feature" into some sort of  into a marketable product.


      Why should we even bother??

      Mark as:
    24. Currently Being Moderated
      May 20, 2009 1:29 PM   in reply to [S]up

      People are upset that they paid x-amount of dollars for Dreamweaver and will be charged an extra fee to use InContext. But you don't need Dreamweaver to use InContext for a website. Although I paid $1800 for my design premium CS4 I don't use Dreamweaver to create my websites and I've added InContext to two of them with no problems.

      Perhaps Adobe should create a system like CushyCMS and offer InContext as a free service and if you want a skinable version then there is a fee, but registered users of Dreamweaver CS4 get a discount.

      Seems fair since you can use Cushy for free but have to pay $28/month for a skinable(pro) version.

      Mark as:
    25. Currently Being Moderated
      May 20, 2009 2:25 PM   in reply to BIG!GFX

      If Adobe have to charge for ICE, they will have to be very careful about the pricing. Whatever they charge I, for one, would have to pass on to my client(s) who would use the service. These times being what they are, it would be very hard to justify charging a client $28/month for work that I could do for them in 5 or 10 minutes.


      The common figures that have been given have been $10 - $20/month for 5 sites (presumably any number of users???). This would be $2 - $4 per site per month. Adding additional sites - even if in groups of 5 (say) - at the same rate would be at the outer edge of acceptabilty. For $2/month, I might even consider taking it out of my margin, just for the time it would save me, not to mention how it might please the customer.


      Assuming that all went bug-free and worked with all current browsers (and not have to wait 6 months for support for IE8, for instance). And that too seeems to be almost too big an assumption at this time.

      Mark as:
    26. Currently Being Moderated
      Jun 16, 2009 6:27 PM   in reply to [S]up

      So creating sites using ICE is going to cost me money (since my time is money) because I will have to remove the ICE components and then find something to replace it with and I have to do all this for free because I included it with the quote for the sites.  I cant believe it was not in my face that this will be a paid service.


      Besides the above issue, people want CMS so they can edit their site themselves for FREE.



      Mark as:
    27. Currently Being Moderated
      Jun 16, 2009 6:32 PM   in reply to [S]up

      Can someone from Adobe please tell us how long we have to remove and replace ICE on our sites.  Will there be a buffer period after the price is announced until we have to start paying?



      Mark as:
    28. Currently Being Moderated
      Jun 18, 2009 9:57 AM   in reply to [S]up

      The Internet web development community took a big hit when Adobe purchased Interakt and ended the life of  a very promising product - the KTML editor.

      Much of the functionality of KTML is now available from other free CMS systems, and web based HTML editors. I have built many sites using these other systems.


      For clients that cannot afford to pay for that kind of custom service, I would like to offer a lower cost option. The web hosting costs are now under 5.00 per month at most ISPs. If the ICE costs a similar amount of money, the client would be looking at a doubling of their cost.


      As a custom web site designer, I cannot in good faith provide ICE to my clients because of the following issues;

      1. The unknown cost of the product makes this less actractive, and I would rather pay a one time licensing fee (like all the other products from Adobe).

      2. The feature set is not mature - there are bugs that need to be resolved, and improvements that need to be made, (Image handling is not functional).

      3. There is a a 24 hr time lag on invitations going to clients - that is not acceptable, and brings up the major issue below.

      4. This service is dependant on a third party web server and authentication. If there is any problem with the 3rd party then we are all SOL.

      I cannot do business relying on an unknown third parties server to always be reliable, and available. That never happens.


      Here are my suggestions;

      1. Provide web developers with the option to run this on their own server, for a one time fee. A service that run as a DLL or process under IIS and Apache.

      2. Provide a license option for a one time fee for x number of sites.

      3. Design an option to allow web developers to not need any thier party or server extensions, as a one time fee, plugin for flash / DWCs4 - all that would be needed is a secure framework to allow editors to edit content.


      -Daniel Hoviss

      Dosolution Inc.

      Mark as:
    29. Currently Being Moderated
      Jun 19, 2009 11:50 PM   in reply to dhoviss

      Wow, Im really glad I skimmed this thread before I bought! I had decided early on to pass on CS4 for a while, everything I read and heard indicated it wasn't worth it. Then I read about ICE and was ecstatic. I have smaller clients that it would be so much easier to have this for rather than deal with small updates, etc. I'm so glad I didn't buy it! There's no way I want to chase people around for monthly fees, etc. I'll just skin them up a WordPress or Joomla site for that stuff.


      Sucks though, I really thought it'd be cool. I feel bad for the people that used it before Adobe announced this.

      Mark as:
    30. Currently Being Moderated
      Jun 24, 2009 1:33 AM   in reply to [S]up
      This appears to be the model as I see it at present:


      Scenario 1


      The developer explains in-context editing to the client.


      Developer:  'this service is free at the moment but there may be a cost in the future"

      Client: 'a one off cost or recurring cost?"

      Developer: "sorry I don't know"

      Client: 'how much will the cost be?"

      Developer: "sorry I don't know"


      I rest my case.


      Scenario 2


      Developer is the the UK and has paid significantly more for the Adobe software than it costs in the USA.

      Developer is unable to use in-context editing even if he/she wanted to despite the fact that this was why they bought the product in the first place.


      Hmm..  live in UK ... pay more - get less


      Message was edited by: Dean Forester

      Mark as:
    31. Currently Being Moderated
      Jun 24, 2009 4:42 AM   in reply to [S]up

      Not really a big one for posting but thought I must share my concerns.


      As IT manage for our firm I have recently convinced our whole design team to switch from Quark to Indesign, as well as installing the full the CS4 Design suite across the board, with the addition of implementing InCopy to assist with our work flow....


      So well done convinced me and now I convinced them....


      However, as with a lot of the Adobe products I am beginning to realise a recurring theme....great advertising.....not so great products....hidden charges, un-finshed products, big promises that are not delivered!


      As a web developer I am currently investigating CMS applications,  with a limited knowledge of PHP and database's, open source systems such as Joomla and Drupal have yet to draw me in, but having looked a bit closer they have made leaps and bounds on making these systems easier to implement. In addition, simply from reading this post I have been introduced to more CMS systems that are free or very cheap (any more suggestions and advice would be welcomed,


      My point: I stumbled across InContext while investigating InCopy workflow, I thought great, I tested it and thought...even better...simple and effective....


      then came the catch...





      Mark as:
    1 2 3 ... 8 Previous Next

    More Like This

    • Retrieving data ...

    Bookmarked By (0)

    Answers + Points = Status

    • 10 points awarded for Correct Answers
    • 5 points awarded for Helpful Answers
    • 10,000+ points
    • 1,001-10,000 points
    • 501-1,000 points
    • 5-500 points