1 2 3 4 5 6 Previous Next 308 Replies Latest reply on Dec 7, 2010 4:27 PM by SEOConsultant Go to original post
      • 120. Re: Pay for InContext ???
        george d.

        Since 1996, i have developed using a variety of program from adobe/aldus/macromedia. I remember using frames in PageMill and charging a client  $100 to set it up, $100 for the software and $30 an hour for training.


        The client gladly paid for the service and I am embarrassed to say, he’s still using this setup in 2009.


        Regarding inContent, I am using it now but with DW 3.0 (haven’t upgraded yet) and have no major issues that cannot be worked out. My point is that the clients purchase YOU and YOUR service. If you think it’s hard, than it is. My clients trust my opinion and depend on the vendors/partners I choose.


        I am cosigning with another poster who bundles this as a “value added” service, it’s not for everyone. if you want to use it on any client, sell the value of the service, not the cost of the service. these clients will appreciate our professionalism. If they really want to update pages themselves, remember they could have built the whole web site without you using those online editors, that’s not why they came to you.

        • 121. Re: Pay for InContext ???

          Yes, from the perspective of fee for services, costs like the ongoing fees for InContext are not out of line in many cases.


          My situation in the case I am most concerned with is where I am the guy in an organization who pretty much decides what we do in these technical spaces, and then implements it.  In this case I have introduced the Contribute/InContext type of mechanism as a means to get more and richer content and involvement in the organization's web presence (it has been a very successful in that sense BTW).


          But this is a community organization where every dollar counts and open ended cost commitments are difficult to recommend let alone vote for, and procurement laws make it very difficult to do.  We make all sorts of decisions like this as to how best to design what we do to get the best bang for our bucks, in the most responsible ways.  The Contribute cost model fits that better than what seems to be coming with InContext, but Contribute is quite expensive, particularly in the sense of the cost for adding contributors.  As far as I know both Contribute and InContext lack a key feature - the ability to effectively isolate different parts of a site so contributors can only make changes in "their" areas.  Absent that feature, Contribute is pretty expensive for a partial solution, and one that Adobe appears to be walking away from in favor of an ongoing revenue model.  How about a one time cost to set the host side of InContext up on our own site where we can deal with the ongoing operating costs?


          As an aside, if it is not obvious I tend to be wary of commitments to directions that are aimed at gaining market control and trying to lock me into a vendor.  I try to avoid Microsoft products when I can for that reason, and I tend to look for openness and interoperability in the directions we take.  That includes avoiding getting inexorably sucked into anyone's proprietary software environment or any of their network "cloud"s, be it Microsoft, Adobe, Google, etc.

          • 122. Re: Pay for InContext ???
            george d. Level 1

            You have an excellent point, content management has been the most lop sided service for my company for the past few years. I have received quotes(last one 48 hours ago) about implementing content management into any of existing websites(all created in DW). The rates I have gotten are well beyond the cost of either contribute or inContext. In addition, I had a nice simple content management system developed for a retired disabled vet, but after 4 months of service, the developer closed his shop and left me with an unhappy client. I recently installed inContext last month and told him that he could use it for free until Adobe charges.


            After reading that Adobe is going to keep it FREE until 2011 made him extremely happy. I guess I am saying that I am one of those guys that do not want to use a lot different tools to do simple things. I get Joomla free, but do not use it, I trust Adobe and will continue to use the contribute/inContext as an option.


            My best content management tool is LIVE in house service which I offer as "managed services"

            • 123. Re: Pay for InContext ???
              Bobxyzzy Level 1

              "My best content management tool is LIVE in house service which I offer as "managed services""


              That has been my prefered model since the web began - send me the content and I will put it up on the site, and I will work with you to develop content.


              But it seems there is a compelling dynamic, at least in my situations, where the extra degree of "ownership" and "control" that letting the contributors feel they are building and maintaing their own pages provides strong motivation to do so.  Most of the cases I have dealt with have the task of contributing to the web presence as an added duty that people may or may not get around to.  The more direct connection that a Contribute/InContext style paradigm provides seems to get people much more interested in putting it near the top of their priority list rather than down towards the bottom.

              • 124. Re: Pay for InContext ???
                george d. Level 1

                I agree with you - I use two macs and 2 windows machines

                • 125. Re: Pay for InContext ???
                  george d. Level 1

                  I am going to prepare and submit a newsletter mentioning the free inContext service for a year and see how many clients actually sign up.

                  • 126. Re: Pay for InContext ???
                    Alec Fehl

                    Cristinel -

                    As I hope you remember, I was a big InterAKT products user. InContext is no substitute for MXKollection/ADDT, but at least it was SOMETHING. I, like many others, are still bummed about the killing of ADDT. It was simply a great way for small shops to easily create full dynamic CMS solutions. One of the really great things about it was I charged my client a flat fee. My clients (nor I) want to pay a monthly fee. For anything. If InContext is $5/month or $120/month it doesn't matter to me or my clients. We want to pay a one-time fee and be done. Buy Dreamweaver/ADDT and be done. Pay for the site/CMS development and be done. So many "newbie" clients are shocked to learn hosting is a recurring fee! I won't be using InContext. I'll continue to develop what I can on CS4/ADDT while implementing other libraries like CakePHP or Code Ignitor. I, like my clients, have zero interest is buying any kind of subscription. I know discussing ADDT is a moot point. It's a dead product. But Adobe has completely ignored the developer market. Maybe that's their business plan. Do they acknowledge it? Is it intentional? I digress. If InContext was free (as initially advertised) I would use it for smaller sites as a quick alternative to ADDT. For a fee - no way.

                    • 127. Re: Pay for InContext ???
                      Captain Slocum

                      Having made a few critical posts in this thread, and having had time to test out InContext, SurrealCMS and CushyCMS on customers, my latest thoughts are this:


                      As a product InContext wins hands down in my customer usability trial. They liked the ease of starting to edit (just browse to the site then hit CtrlE) and the reasonably intuitive editing process, but more than anything they liked the fact that Incontext was WYSIWYG and the others are not.


                      And I find it easier to implement. It worked seamlessly first try with a page that had Spry tabbed panels eg.


                      Negative comments from my customers about InContext: Why can't I see a thumbnail of the new images I want to upload? Why can't I change the background colour, border and padding of a region?


                      Regarding the pricing. The latest information is saying that it will cost $10 - $20 pm for an unlimited number of web sites. This is better than previously thought when it was supposed that the number of websites would be limited, and compares favourably with the other two products mentioned. I think though that a differentiated pricing model would satisfy just about everybody - free for 2 web sites ( that takes care of the pro-bonos), $10 pm for up to 5 (that's only $2.00 pm to pass on), and $20 unlimited. While this is not going to make a fortune for Adobe, it will pay for the server time, generate good will and sell Adobe products.


                      I still think Adobe were badly at fault for not mentioning it was going to be charged for on their DW CS4 page. Even now they do not make this clear - you are expected to know that when they say free preview they don't mean free without buying CS4, which is what I thought it meant, and you have to read and interpret the small print in InContext terms. As I said in a previous post, this is sharp practice and I am surprised, given the amount of interest this topic has created, they have not changed the wording, which still gives the impression that Incontext is a new feature of CS4.


                      Now if someone could come up with a buy-once application that I could host on my own servers like Drupal or Joomla but was as easy to use as InContext I would bite their hand off.


                      But like Lightroom, which I hated when it was ver1 and now can't live without, InContext is starting to win me round.

                      • 128. Re: Pay for InContext ???
                        dhoviss Level 1

                        All of the other web 2.0 editors you mentioned are WISIWIG, and there are several more;



                        And others




                        The point of my reply is that ICE offers very little that is not already freely available.

                        There are several editors that work the same way as ICE, in that you simply add a div to the page you want to edit or allow your clients to edit.

                        It is easy to create a custom button in Dreamweaver that allows Div insertions...


                        Then there are many editors you can add to your own CMS, some are free;












                        Many more are used in free CMS systems listed below;



                        Then there is a new breed of online CMS systems like;





                        Then there are many trusted specilized systems





                        These are more complete systems and offer templates, file management and more.


                        So why consider ICE at all? Should your clients need CMS systems, the choice should be about what systems meet their needs, not did this come for free as an addon to Dreamweaver. Even if it was free, it is too late, and the feature set is not at all compellingly better or different from what is out there now.


                        -Daniel Hoviss






                        IMHO - Incontext should be free, since that adds value to Dreamweaver, there is no compelling reason to use it

                        • 129. Re: Pay for InContext ???
                          Zabeth69 Level 5

                          If I can offer my clients an editing system for their websites that only involves going to their browser, opening their web page, and striking Control-E, that is the system they want...they don't need any of your free or cheap or otherwise better etc. etc. systems.


                          They don't do website editing as their main job...it is an adjunct to their primary responsibilities, and I am happy to be able to provide ICE to them to do it with.


                          End of story.



                          • 130. Re: Pay for InContext ???
                            dhoviss Level 1

                            That's great if your clients need Ctrl+E and it works for you. That is the end of the story - for you.

                            Clearly there is more to the story, or there would not be this many posts, in several threads.


                            All I was attempting to point out is that there are some great alternative options, my fav being CushyCMS.

                            All of these (including ICE) have unique features.

                            ICE has a nice insert / duplicate reagon function - and the Ctr+E - as you point out.

                            Cush has the history option to revert to a previously saved version - which is great!

                            Sureal has the page cloning and preview options, and more.


                            Many CMS systems offer more than simple page editing, such as templates, automatic navigation building and whatnot, that could be useful for some.


                            What I would like to see is a real comparison of features for the free and paid versions of the major players and compare what we get and if we get do things like branding, fine grained control over what users and groups can do, and more.


                            Let the features speak for themselves.



                            • 131. Re: Pay for InContext ???
                              Zabeth69 Level 5

                              Of course.


                              And if I were using it myself, I would probably want lots more options, and I would look into your suggestions.


                              But because I can just fire up Dreamweaver, I don't really need to.


                              When I get to the point of having a more dedicated client (customer-type client), I would consider more options. For now, there's no need.




                              • 132. Re: Pay for InContext ???


                                Are you kidding me.. You (Adobe) took away the Drive to help "us" easily Develop these solutions for "our Clients", on our own.. So that YOU CAN Provide it as a solution for "our Clients".. and basically "THINK FOLKS" by pass US!  You want MY Client to Pay YOU! For a Site that I Build.. So Basically you no linger want to help me DEVELOP GOOD solutions using your Dreamweaver.. You would rather act like a snake Move over Dreamweaver and grab part of my Business with MY Name on it using ICE? and compete for part of a developers solution? What Adobe should really be doing folks is working very hard on "DREAMWEAVER" to help "US" do OUR job and help us build our small php CMS sites. With easier and faster snips and plug-ins that help us do this on your own!


                                Well I guess they only want part of our CMS income.. So if  today they want to provide this service for you and your client. WHEN are they planning to help us build the solution.. as a path in DREAMWEAVER?


                                seeing how CMS is so Popular these days like you said in the copy.. When are you going to make Dreamweaver worth the money we pay to do our CMS jobs better? Do you have a team working on that now?


                                PHP Not ColdFusion. You know we all use php It's free and has a world of real helpful support!!


                                People, learn how to do this! Google it, spend two months, Charge your Clients $100 a month to use a solution with YOUR NAME on it and not "ADOBE".. Then, you will not need to hand over your clients to companies like Adobe.. This is a joke and makes me sick. Just put in the time and learn some PHP and Basic JS or AJAX, so you can stay away from bad solutions like this one.. and this is NOT a Dreamweaver plug-in to help us make more money. It is NOW just another tool for Adobe to take your money..


                                I have every Adobe Suite owned every Macromedia Suite.. I like many others that will read this, have paid Thousands of MY Dollars to buy Adobe tools to help me build better solutions for my Clients and make money for my family.. NOT give it away to ADOBE.. You are obviously no longer in the business to make tools that will help me and these other people MAKE these solutions rather you are now in the business to take away my benefit of a better tool to build solutions away from us!!


                                I will post on 1,000.00 web developer Blogs before January-1-2010 along with a list of links to software in the industry that "help developers" build these very popular and much needed basic CMS Solutions that we all need for our Client. I just want to let a few of my friends know about this new Dreamweaver trend..

                                Thank you for your time and reading this..

                                • 133. Re: Pay for InContext ???
                                  Elsengi Level 1

                                  Second thought I'll just post the other solutions. I don't want to give Adobe any traffic..

                                  • 134. Re: Pay for InContext ???

                                    Brilliant post above.... been following this thread from day one and read all the interesting things that people have thrown up, I have implemented ICE and found it very useful for me as a beginner and new developer trying to offer my very small number of clients a better solution, like you say, everybody wants CMS, I have investigated Joomla and Drupal and will continue this research as I feel there is power there but with my lack of php knowledge these other bespoke solutions you speak of may be out of my reach.


                                    Still, I completely and 100% agree with what you have wrote regarding Abode and their aims!!


                                    I await this list of links that might help me get started in developing my own solutions....bring it on!!


                                    Perhaps contact me directly with some advice.







                                    • 135. Re: Pay for InContext ???
                                      Elsengi Level 1

                                      Another thing I do not want to hear another WORD about how hard Adobe is working to make Adobe great..
                                      WHAT are you doing to HELP me and all of these other customers prosper in this difficult economy.. FOCUS ON MY TOOLS!
                                      Not your foolish get rick off our backs Scams!!


                                      ****Adobe Said =

                                      {"Paid Dreamweaver feature?
                                      a.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."}

                                      ****No I think They were Very Clear when they Adobe Said this =
                                      {Adobe Dreamweaver Developer Toolbox was introduced to make it easier for some Dreamweaver users to build dynamic web applications and deliver compelling functionality to their customers. It fully supported existing development models and was intuitive enough to be useful to many designers just entering into the web development space. However, it was far from ideal for many reasons, including complexity, intrusiveness, and inability to customize.

                                      The Dreamweaver Developer Toolbox user has always been considered in parallel with the Dreamweaver user. In researching the needs of both user groups, we've learned a great deal about what web development professionals now consider to be best practices for rapid application development and web application prototypes. What we learned made us realize that both the Dreamweaver and Dreamweaver Developer Toolbox roadmaps needed to evolve in order to better address the current development issues faced by our customers.

                                      Therefore, in order to help our web professional customers take advantage of the functionalities brought by the rising use of CMS frameworks and the strong web design capabilities of Dreamweaver, we have decided to focus our efforts on delivering features in Dreamweaver that will help developers easily and quickly integrate, brand, and customize prebuilt components, instead of going through a separate tool. }


                                      *****They took AWAY Part of our  "CMS" tool set "InterAKT, ADDT, Dreamweaver Developer Toolbox " and gave us this?? YOUR JOB IS to BUILD BETTER Tools FOR US!!  NOT BECOME OUR HOSTING PROVIDER and your NEW "CMS framework" for our Clients SITES!!
                                           Who do you think you are??


                                      *****Go ahead Put your big team on a REAL Solution for "DEVELOPERS"  build a better "Dreamweaver Developer Toolbox".. and if it's a real good solution we won't need ICE.. But you can't do that can you.. Because ICE is your Baby

                                      You have No Clue what Wed Developers need you only know what you need!

                                      • 136. Re: Pay for InContext ???
                                        Captain Slocum Level 1

                                        I agree with your basic argument rnfw that Adobe are trying to change their revenue stream with this venture. This unfortunately is the way it is going all over. Why have a one off payment when you can have a continuous stream? No doubt it is the layoffs at Adobe that have prompted this thinking. When every one has a brilliant piece of software it becomes difficult to persuade owners to upgrade, it becomes harder and harder to produce an upgrade that everyone wants. MS found this with Vista - XP works fine, why change? Even WebAssist are going this way and trying to persuade us to take out a monthly prescription - how long before this is the only way to buy software? It is why phone companies give away expensive mobile phones, so they can have a steady income.


                                        As I said in a previous post, I would definitely pay for a one off app that did what InContext does and host it on my server. I might even try to build one myself. However, I am sure it cannot be as easy as setting up a few PHP databases. I already do this for my clients for content management where they need to change items in their shops, photos in their galleries, text for their special offers page etc. What InContext does though is make it as easy as using a simple DTP programme, something my clients are mostly familiar with. The positive feedback I have had from clients using InContext as compared to Cushy or Surreal or my own PHP systems is overwhelming. Don't underestimate the problems ordinary folks have with computers.


                                        I look forward to you posting details of apps that can help us do this ourselves but they will have to be as easy for the client to use as InContext or they are dead in the water.

                                        • 137. Re: Pay for InContext ???
                                          Elsengi Level 1

                                          The Solutions will be filled by another.  As necessity is the mother of invention.. Adobe will not grow in any respectful, meaningful way by this kind of inward focus of putting themselves before the product in this chain of service.. Being so big as they are and alienating "Their Core Client Tasks Midstream" like this, sets in motion a culture of distain.. As far as ICE it's just lipstick on a pig and that is why they will not let you install it on any other servers.. Adobe has a history of moving clients through service streams.. Do we need to fight for our client only to have them read the Adobe website and find out we are paying $5.00 a month or whatever? Plus, the nature of branding and curiosity our your customers would look around..

                                          you know they will in short time take advantage of the obvious pool of new clients "Your Clients" that are using their solution. You may as well design a sight and send your clients to http://www.intuit.com and publish it there.. So does Adobe want to help us with tools or just suck up all the scraps they can and move on to the next? I think it's clear, we are just becoming consumable goods in this business model. Ok, they have Photoshop as for Dreamweaver, I am not looking for a Photoshop Filter solutions for Dreamweaver provided to me by Adobe.. I need the tool, that I paid for, to work better "at it's intended use", Every time I upgrade. So at this rate I will not pay for CS5 master collection this time around..

                                          As for developing small CMS solutions.. I am thinking about it..  I do know how to do this and I am sick of everyone dangling this around like it's a magic carpet.. It is not!

                                          True Captain and I do understand about layoffs.. I just lost my job as a marketing and media director after 35 years.. But her is the basic principle here.. You don't Steel from my Garden to feed your family, or I will wise up and stop you. But, if you help me grow more food you may have a good shot at doing business with me...


                                          Look you want to sell ICE fine.  But, DO NOT do that at Dreamweavers expense or I as your or customer we will rebel and sooner or later you will have another GoLive on your hands..


                                          Ok now, I am just moving in and out of the line and scope of this topic.. But, I am really, very aggravated with Adobe right now..

                                          • 138. Re: Pay for InContext ???
                                            Tommy Logic Level 3

                                            The toolset they use is fairly transparent... If you're THAT upset, seems like as a  talented developer you could just rip it and install a similar service on your site. It would be a little bit of work, but not out of the question.

                                            • 139. Re: Pay for InContext ???
                                              ew3d Level 1

                                              ------begin quote-------

                                              The "Free Preview/How much will InContext Editing cost" states: "This fee will include unlimited usage of InContext Editing, without restrictions or additional fees for the number of domain you have registered with the service."


                                              Best regards,



                                              -------end quote----------


                                              This is not clear. I suppose "domain" is supposed to be plural? If so, it becomes a little more clear.


                                              Can I assume the following:


                                              InContext will cost between 10 and 20 dollars per month for a developer placing an unlimited number of domains on that developer's administrative interface or their central InContext account? (whatever you would call this main area where accounts are created, invites are sent and website information is stored)


                                              As a developer, I will pay between $120 and $240 per year to Adobe in order to offer this service to any number of clients I wish to subscribe.


                                              If this is the case, I find the pricing quite reasonable. As for the $20 per month for five domains? You can buy entire hosting services with a CMS for $4 per month and maybe even $1.99 a month! Lets not get into a discussion on the quality of these hosting services but they do provide a lot more bandwidth and higher server loads than just a method to login to a simple editor.


                                              As for the future, don't try to make InContext any more than it is. It should be a method for a client to login and make simple text changes to their website. If images need to be changed, developers should do this. Website owners don't "get it" and will not test in 3 or 4 different browsers at various resolutions. They won't know a good image from a poor image. Allowing them more power is generally not a good idea.

                                              • 140. Re: Pay for InContext ???
                                                Tommy Logic Level 3

                                                Three HUNDRED Eighyt-Eight words & all I heard was


                                                Blah... Blah... BLAH!!!!!




                                                I don't believe people are still posting on this. Dammmm this horse is so beat......

                                                • 141. Re: Pay for InContext ???
                                                  gibry21 Level 1

                                                  Tommy what is your point my friend??


                                                  Surely the more people that post here and keep the thread going, the more chance of Adobe taking notice! Afterall, whether we like it or not, the majority of people in this industry use their tools in one form or another....so perhaps if people stopped b*tching about adobe and those who claim to have all the knowledge actually offered decent feed back to them...maybe, just maybe they will start to take note.


                                                  Not a gripe....just an observation....as I novice I am in no place to properly critise or comment, but I do find InContext usefull for small clients.

                                                  • 142. Re: Pay for InContext ???
                                                    Tommy Logic Level 3

                                                    Ohhhh, you'll just have to take my word for it... Adobe KNOWS

                                                    and there isn't changing ANYTHING { in respect to the pricing model }..... servers cost money.


                                                    If there is anything to be done, it is in the development of the product itself. It doesn't work and it's taken WAY longer than they anticipated to get it off the ground.


                                                    They can't continue to feed a dead horse.

                                                    • 143. Re: Pay for InContext ???

                                                      Well I have one client using it...  or rather not using it.  Yes it is simple enough but if people do not use it what is the point.  All I can say is that if they do go ahead with a pay use model on it I will definately be pulling out and it will just force me to create my own using Adobe's own products.  A flash based front end with a PHP/ASP backend sounds good.  Anyways... if it is going to end in pay... RIP ICE.

                                                      • 144. Re: Pay for InContext ???
                                                        MacGyver_971 Level 1

                                                        Offering a feature in the box, and then forcing customers to pay for it later is ridiculous. Adobe continues to shoot its web-clients in the foot and do things to piss us off. They purchased the great tools from Interact and then mothballed the development. For those of us who've used these extensions in the past, they no longer work in recent versions of DW.


                                                        C'mon Adobe -- you want to retain your web developer client-base? Here's what you do:


                                                        - Offer your customers the ability to provide editability to web pages. Let's face it. Blogging and micro-blogging have been around for many years now. Millions and millions of people do it. Adobe isn't jumping on the bandwagon.

                                                        - Offer an out-of-the-box E-commerce solution. Let's face it. Online shopping has been around for many years now. Millions and millions of people do it. Adobe isn't jumping on the bandwagon.

                                                        - Offer an out-of-the-box Newsletter distribution solution. Let's face it. Newsletter marketing has been around for many years now. Millions and millions of people do it. Adobe isn't jumping on the bandwagon.


                                                        Do this, and you're well on your way of putting WebAssist and Constant Contact out of business.

                                                        • 145. Re: Pay for InContext ???
                                                          ew3d Level 1

                                                          I have a lot of clients using it. We do all the tech support and training for them. I purchased CS4 specifically for this product. Meanwhile, hundreds of webpages have been edited to add the tags, clients have jumped through the hoops of the registration process, which is for most very confusing. But, it has been extremely well received by our clients. Just what the same company needs. A cheap way to do minor edits, pretty much just text, on their websites. There is a reasonable amount we could afford to pay for this service, but the original pricing model was way over the top. I do hope Adobe is listening. Bait and switch was not on our radar when we chose this application.

                                                          • 146. Re: Pay for InContext ???
                                                            Devin Holloway

                                                            I think Adobe should be targeting hosting service providers. When creating a new hosting account with a provider that offers ICE, the host could charge an extra $5 for the service (assuming it costs $20/mo for 5 domains). That way the cost can be spread amongst multiple customers in the case that a single customer does not have blocks of 5 domains/sites to host. That extra fee for the customer would be bundled with the monthly (or yearly) hosting fee to avoid multiple transactions. Hosts might even be able to get a discount from Adobe on large volumn licenses and potentially pass on some of the savings to their customers.


                                                            Most hosting providers that I've seen don't offer any good (built-in) content management. If they do, it's usually so basic that it's not relevant. Either that, or they support compatibility with various other free CMSs that you must install/configure yourself.

                                                            • 147. Re: Pay for InContext ???
                                                              Tommy Logic Level 3

                                                              Devin Holloway wrote:


                                                              I think Adobe should be targeting hosting service providers. When creating a new hosting account with a provider that offers ICE, the host could charge an extra $5 for the service (assuming it costs $20/mo for 5 domains). That way the cost can be spread amongst multiple customers in the case that a single customer does not have blocks of 5 domains/sites to host. That extra fee for the customer would be bundled with the monthly (or yearly) hosting fee to avoid multiple transactions. Hosts might even be able to get a discount from Adobe on large volumn licenses and potentially pass on some of the savings to their customers.


                                                              Most hosting providers that I've seen don't offer any good (built-in) content management. If they do, it's usually so basic that it's not relevant. Either that, or they support compatibility with various other free CMSs that you must install/configure yourself.


                                                              SInce you feel that way.. perhaps you should take some of your creative genious & build it on your own... as I am doing now: Tommy Logic™ | Total Web Solutions      The big providers don't provide a LOT  of things and they may or may not catch on eventually.... I sure hope not.


                                                              Good Luck,


                                                              • 148. Re: Pay for InContext ???
                                                                Devin Holloway Level 1

                                                                Tommy Logic wrote:


                                                                Devin Holloway wrote:




                                                                Most hosting providers that I've seen don't offer any good (built-in) content management. If they do, it's usually so basic that it's not relevant. Either that, or they support compatibility with various other free CMSs that you must install/configure yourself.


                                                                SInce you feel that way.. perhaps you should take some of your creative genious & build it on your own... as I am doing now: http://www.tommylogic.com/Tommy Logic™ | Total Web Solutions      The big providers don't provide a LOT  of things and they may or may not catch on eventually.... I sure hope not.


                                                                Good Luck,


                                                                Well, I wasn't complaining about it, Tom. I was simply stating how things are. In any case, your solution is for everyone to just roll their own CMS... Seriously? I think the silliness of that speaks for itself without the need for a debate. In any case, it's more than obvious that the intention of your post was nothing more than to advertise your own CMS rather than contribute to the topic at hand.

                                                                • 149. Re: Pay for InContext ???
                                                                  Tommy Logic Level 3
                                                                  I would rather wait until the next design, which is usually an annual thing

                                                                  I still have clients using Macromedia Contribute on sites designed in 1994


                                                                  My client would pay 5-10 times that much easily just for the ease of being able to edit his own pages, easily.


                                                                  Which is why I would charge $150 to convert a site (see above quote as well)...


                                                                  It would be less of a headache to me to absorb the $240 a year personally than to worry about client's sites getting updated.


                                                                  No kidding... see above two replies... duhh


                                                                  I don't charge a lot, because it's not my freelance work that pays my bills. 

                                                                  Ohh look.. I'm a Graphic Designer too... " Web 2.0 and grudge free buttons generator! "   Isn't that like Dreamweaver?


                                                                  But the service itself is more than reasonable at $240 (or less, remember) for 5 websites. 

                                                                  Well... if you sell it, its ALL reasonable.


                                                                  Honestly though.. my intention wasn't just to self-promote... but rather illustrate that fact that the service costs money to someone... whether it be my servers, Adobe's servers.. somebody has to pay for it. My solution was to market a built in CMS that I can actually sell. Which is what Adobe was trying to give us; another tool product that could be sold. My god.. Contribute costs $199 a ******* User these days.


                                                                  If you read any of my other posts on this thread alone, you'll see that I am far from satisfied.. yet there is a need for this service. So rather than complain, I am taking the time to help fix the main problems (and address other peoples issues). I am attributing it to R&D. This service will work & greatly lessen my server payload (costs).. when / if its complete.


                                                                  My point, as yours, is quit complaining.. start fixing. Tell us what would work for you.. how could you sell it. If its broke, how is it broke and what do you see as a reasonable fix... CONTRIBUTE...

                                                                  • 150. Re: Pay for InContext ???
                                                                    DaveIsMyName Level 1

                                                                    I am not trying to split hairs here, though some of you (and my wife) would beg to differ, but Tom you did state:


                                                                    "SInce you feel that way.. perhaps you should take some of your creative genious & build it on your own... as I am doing now"


                                                                    Which would lead one to believe that you are a smart and action oriented man and you took it upon yourself to create your own CMS.  Which if that were the case cudos to you.  However,  to moan about someones post because you think that they are complaining to much and not doing anything when you claim to have built a CMS when really you are just using joomla and seemingly trying to take credit for it... well it tends to take your credibility and throw it right in the round bin.


                                                                    Think before you post.  Think before you critisize.  We are all developers and mature adults ( though this is a blatant assumption).

                                                                    • 151. Re: Pay for InContext ???
                                                                      Tommy Logic Level 3

                                                                      Ohhh I get it now... No.. no let me clarify. I was speaking of the part where you stated they don't offer a bundled package. And what I am trying to do is just that; bundle hosting with a Free, installed, functioning CMS.


                                                                      I see what what all your hoopla was about now. Sorry for the mis-communication.

                                                                      • 152. Re: Pay for InContext ???

                                                                        First off I agree that the ICE service should not be free, but for it to be worth while from a business standpoint, and at $20 per month paid to Adobe, the "web shop" would need to charge at least $10 per month to each client to use the service. It's a given that most clients won't want to pay more than $10 a month for the ICE service unless their web site is a large one. So if Adobe needs $20 a month for 5 domains in the current price proposal, the web shop would need to have 2 clients using it right away just to break even and acquire 3 clients just to start making a profit. The proposed pricing model puts much more "pressure" on the web shop's side to sign people up on the service as fast as possible starting out. The situation becomes even more evident if the web shop has 6 clients and is now paying $40 a month to Adobe for two base accounts. With 5 clients and one base account the web shop profits $50-($20 to Adobe)=$30 total per month. With 6 clients and two base accounts the web shop profit takes a dip with $60-($40 to Adobe)=$20 total profit per month. So the current pricing model becomes a kind of stair-stepping profit and loss situation for the web shop when they don't have each base account "loaded up" per say.


                                                                        A MUCH better pricing strategy for both Adobe and web shop owners would be for Adobe to create an initial 3 domain base account for $10 a month and then "throttle the price" for each additional domain. This would lower the initial profit risk for the web shop greatly. Let me illustrate... Let's say Adobe charges a base price of $10 a month for a 3 domain base account to start with. Then for every NEW domain there is an additional $5 a month charge. Ok, so let's say the web shop has 5 client domains... now we have a a base price of $10 (3 domains in the base) + 2 NEW domains and that's a total of a $20 total per month paid to Adobe. Now for 5 domains Adobe is STILL making the $20 a month it needs. At this point though, the web shop has 5 committed ICE clients and is charging a minimum of $10 per domain so they receive $50 per month minus the $20 paid back to Adobe for a total profit of $30 per month. If the web shop has 6 client domains then the total profit is $25 to Adobe rather than having to pay $40 per month with the current proposed pricing model. Now we must look at how this pricing strategy "benefits" Adobe, because at 6 domains Adobe was previously getting $40 for two base accounts with 5 domains in each. BUT if they go with a throttled pricing model those same 10 domains now would mean $45 per month ($10 base + 7 new domains at $5 each for $35) instead of the previous $40 per month for Adobe. Ok, wait a second (I can hear most of you saying it now) why would we now pay Adobe an extra $5 per month for 10 domains? The answer is simple, because previously they would be getting $40 a month for say 6 domains whereas now they would only get (($10 + 3 new domains x $5 each = $15)) = a total of $25 per month for 6 domains. This is very fair because Adobe now takes on a lower rate per month as the domain counts ramp up, but now at the 10 domain mark they would be getting $45 per month instead of $40.


                                                                        Overall this strategy eliminates the starting risk for the web shop, ensures the web shop's profit right away, and in the long run Adobe profits a little bit more for higher domains counts. Both sides get a much better deal with a throttled pricing model!


                                                                        And as a last note of "profitable hope" for the web shop readers, you could also base your ICE monthly service price on the size of each client's web site. For example: 20 pages or less = $10 per month, 21- 50 pages = $15 per month and for large web sites above 50 pages you could go with $20 per month. This is actually still fair, because if you think about it you still have to provide ICE code support for each page should something go wrong and provide support for ICE user e-mail questions, training, etc. So the more page support you have to deal with code-wise, e-mail-wise, or even phone-wise the more it should justify a higher monthly cost back to your client for having a larger web site to maintain overall.

                                                                        • 153. Re: Pay for InContext ???
                                                                          Capt Obvious Level 1

                                                                          I have not read all the posts, so sorry if this is repeating what someone has already said.


                                                                          Like many others I have had a lot of clients in my life who wanted some basic CMS capability but didn't want to pay for it, so ICE is a quick and easy wasy to give this to clients for almost zero extra work and without having to use any specific server technology on your site.

                                                                          Part of me does think it should be FREE because I have already paid for CS4 Studio so Adobe have already had their money, and no individual site will use the service heavily as it is after all only for the most basic CMS needs. Any site wanting REAL CMS features won't use this.


                                                                          Then on the other hand I would not want it to be free for 2 good reasons.


                                                                          1) I would want the service to be reliable and maintained and have a decent SLA, which wont happen if it is free.

                                                                          2) It should be a value added service for professional developers and designers, If it is free then any 2 bit cowboy with an illegal copy of dreamweaver can offer the same thing to his customer and then never have to support it or pay for it.


                                                                          So I actually think $10-$20 for every 5 sites is actually quite reasonable. For those bedroom designers who only do the odd site in their spare time and only have 1-2 clients, yes the cost may seem unfair to you based on previous comments, but this is because you are all trying to make a 100% - 200% or more profit on ICE from the comments I have seen. You seem all too quick to point the finger at Adobe for being greedy, but perhaps you need to look at yourself.

                                                                          The obvious solution is to simply not try to make any profit on ICE for your first couple of clients, just to cover the cost. So if you only have 1 client and ICE costs $20, then charge them $20, when you get a second client then charge them both $10 each, and so on. A no brainer really, and I think that anyone who can't grasp that is in the wrong career.

                                                                          • 154. Re: Pay for InContext ???
                                                                            smasheasy Level 1

                                                                            I'd be willing to pay, if it was worth it. But InContext is still way to buggy. My clients are always having trouble, with either the InContext site, or formatting their additions, duplicating pages, etc.


                                                                            I hate getting the InContext calls, because it's always something on Adobe's end, not anything I've done in creating the site. And I'm always the one who has to sort it out.


                                                                            I'll pay for it when it's a finished product, not while it's still in development.

                                                                            • 155. Re: Pay for InContext ???

                                                                              Hi Russ,

                                                                              You fail to consider those of us who make websites for non-commercial

                                                                              clients.  I volunteer to make websites for community organizations and

                                                                              missionaries and it is not reasonable to ask them to pay even $10/month.

                                                                              • 156. Re: Pay for InContext ???
                                                                                Zabeth69 Level 5

                                                                                While it is true that when we volunteer our services to non-commercial and non-profit entities, we are essentially donating our own time and service, the donation increases when we pay for goods and services to complete the projects for which we donate our time.


                                                                                Bravo for your contribution and donations. They are making it possible for you to exercise your webdesign muscles and skills, not to mention getting your name out there as a good do-be.


                                                                                The fact remains that if your client (of any stripe) wants their website content edited, someone pays. If you choose to donate your editing time, you pay (although you probably don't pay for InContext Editing if you actually edit in Dreamweaver). If you choose to bestow on your client the responsibility for their own content, it's your choice. Do you donate your time to set up the pages for ICE; do you donate the monthly charge for using the online service of ICE; do you donate your time to train the client to use ICE?


                                                                                Recently, one of my non-profit clients (though not a volunteer job, thank goodness) changed their web host and needed to update their Contribute access. We worked together...she on her system, me on mine...and got as far as "someone else (that would be me) is editing this site using a newer version of Contribute. You will be unable to edit without upgrading your version."


                                                                                We jointly decided to go for InContext Editing instead of staying on the upgrade train for Contribute. We will never have a different version of InContext Editing, because it is always an online service. The edit of the former Contribute site to be an ICE site is not onerous. In fact, I am able to simplify the site, because I can reduce the number of page-specific Templates I need to use. So we're going through that tune-up now.


                                                                                After I have set up the site for ICE, I will decide how to handle ICE monthly charges. If the parameters remain $20/month for unlimited sites, I may absorb it. I'm not a big shop, but $20 is not a lot of overhead, and represents less than an hour's billing of my time.


                                                                                If they were a for-profit concern, I might think differently.



                                                                                • 157. Re: Pay for InContext ???
                                                                                  razorxdev Level 1



                                                                                  Adobe has already stated that InContext is a seperate service and is not a part of a Dreamweaver purchase. It's only part in Dreamweaver is the ICE integration code only as an option. Therefore...InContext will not be free, will never be free, period and end of story from Adobe.


                                                                                  Getting $20 a month is not so easy when you actually have paying clients. I have paying clients and I can tell you first-hand that even a corporate client questions and is concerned with an extra $10-15 a month. The resonable prices for what you can expect to get from a client are like this: $10 for a small site, $15 for a medium site, and $20 for a larger site. The larger the web site the more pages and the increase in chance of specific ICE page problems, freezes, botched saves, etc.


                                                                                  Just because you hand over the CMS ICE reins to your users to edit the web site for themselves STILL means you are responsible to support the ICE CMS (code-wise, e-mail-wise, phone-wise) should your users have problems, freezes, messed-up saves or drafts, browser issues, log in issues, etc. So CMS support and time is still there and somehow you have to be compensated for your support time if you are running a business... hence some kind of monthly fee back to the client.

                                                                                  • 158. Re: Pay for InContext ???
                                                                                    Capt Obvious Level 1

                                                                                    Well you may be doing websites for non commercial clients, but I bet you don't do them for free. I would suggest you have a look at www.pagelime.com, not only is it better than ICE, but you get the first 3 sites for free as well so that would solve your problem.

                                                                                    • 159. Re: Pay for InContext ???
                                                                                      Capt Obvious Level 1

                                                                                      Hi Razor,


                                                                                      Sadly I think you missed the point of my post entirely.

                                                                                      At no point have I implied that ICE was part of DW or would ever be FREE, if you read I simply stated my reason for thinking it should be FREE to concurr with this topic of discussion.


                                                                                      You also do not need to get £20 from 1 client. If you think they wont pay then just charge whatever you think they will pay, after all you have got more than 1 site for your $20, the rest you will just have to suck down.


                                                                                      As has been suggested by others, if you don;t like ICE or the price, use something else, try www.pagelime.com

                                                                                      1 2 3 4 5 6 Previous Next