Adobe Introduces 'Muse' Subscription-Based Website Creation Tools

[r018u]

So the video states "people won't be coding websites in 10 years time".. Does "Muse" have any GUI elements heading towards replacing server side languages and database management? Important for 'designers' to store all their portfolio work amongst other things one would think.

Re the css comment - coding a background color through CSS (1-2 seconds), and probably the majority of attributes, is quicker than clicking a few buttons to select your tool, then dragging your mouse all over the screen using color picker.

Sorry but I cant take this product or design team seriously.

 

[imgonephishin]

Three main problems with this

Subscription software. I mean, $20/month or $180/year? Really? That's a bit steep. Why does everything have to be a subscription these days? Movies, music, software, ad naseum. I like to buy something outright. Besides, there are a lot of great alternatives (Flux, RapidWeaver, and many more) for 3 or 4 months of Muse's price (or less).

Bloated output code. Dreamweaver produces absolutely atrocious code. Judging by the home page which was "made in Muse" they've only made some baby steps. But it still suffers from a severe case of "div-itis" with dozens of layered nested divs. Also, that one pretty simple homepage has TWENTY linked .js files. Talk about performance hogs. The code may validate, but it is far from optimized. Now, you may say, "a print designer doesn't care what the code is like." That's true to a point, but imagine a scenario where someone creates a site in Muse and then later, after canceling the expensive software subscription, tries to make some small incremental changes to it themselves (as they learn HTML) or hires a web designer. Navigating the code jungle below is next to impossible.

<div class="grpelem" id="n37"><!-- group -->
      <div class="grpelem" id="n38"><!-- group -->
       <div class="PamphletWidget widget_invisible grpelem" id="n39"><!-- group -->
        <div class="popup_anchor">
         <div class="ContainerGroup" id="n40"><!-- stack box -->
          <div class="Container grpelem" id="n41"><!-- group -->
           <div class="PamphletWidget widget_invisible grpelem" id="n42"><!-- group -->
            <div class="ThumbGroup grpelem" id="n43"><!-- none box -->
             <div class="popup_anchor">
              <div class="Thumb popup_element" id="n44"><!-- simple frame --></div>
             </div>
             <div class="wrap"></div>
            </div>
            <div class="popup_anchor">
             <div class="ContainerGroup" id="n45"><!-- stack box -->
              <div class="Container grpelem" id="n46"><!-- column -->
               <div class="colelem" id="n47"><!-- group -->
                <div class="grpelem" id="n48"><!-- group -->
                 <div class="grpelem" id="n49"><!-- group -->
                  <div class="grpelem" id="n50"><!-- simple frame --></div>
                  <div class="grpelem" id="n51"><!-- group -->
                   <div class="grpelem" id="n52"><!-- group -->
                    <div class="grpelem" id="n53"><!-- content -->
                     <h4 class="heading-4" id="n55">Share this video</h4>

I could go on: 24 iFrames... 1400 lines of HTML for a very simple page. A fully duplicated site code for IE conditional comments (rather than handling that in the .css).

Bloated native software. It runs on the Adobe Air platform which is still relatively nascent technology and suffers from some performance and stability issues. For example, I just launched the beta right now and it froze on startup. I appreciate that it's merely a public beta, but the reliance on Air does not give me much hope. Also, since when do the tech specs for web design software require a minimum 2.3 GHz dual core processor???

 

[isoMorpheus]

Looks worse than iWeb. And the introduction videos sucks as well. "And I mean traditional designer in the most sincere sense possible." Who cares how you are using the word?

 

[r018u]

Subscription software.

Bloated output code.

Bloated native software.

This

 

[Repo]

Time is running out for adobe

Maybe this is their uprising.

 

[MacLawyer]

Not so Unique?

Looks like Rapidweaver and some other packages I've seen. Nothing new here.

 

[blacktape242]

Adobe "Iweb"?

Is that what is this supposed to be?

I would have to pay HOW much to use it!?

I would think about it if it was free and just as easy as Iweb.

 

[newagemac]

Worse yet, in 6 or 12 months, imagine the poor sap that's asked to fix the site after the guy that built it with this is long gone. Fixing Dreamweaver based sites was bad enough, now this?..

Get Wordpress, buy a theme, and get on with it. This Adobe junk isn't needed.

Props to Adobe for creating another 1998 solution in 2011.

I was about to agree with you until you mentioned using Wordpress and buying a theme. You just blew all credibility with your argument with that. By the way, Dreamweaver stopped being a WYSIWYG editor several versions ago. Now it is used by coders who hand code and for managing sites. Dreamweaver CS5 in particular is excellent.

This Muse thing seems to spit out code however which is almost certainly going to be problematic. I can see it being excellent as a prototyping tool though.

 

[gugy]

WOW,
This might be a dream come true for me.
As a designer I am very familiar with tools like Adobe's Illustrator/Photoshop/InDesign/AE. I absolutely have no clue with web programing/code and have not desire at all to learn it.
In the past I used Freeway and it was a nice tool, but I still felt a bit restricted by it. If Muse becomes what they are promising and work seamlessly with all Adobe programs I cannot tell how happy I will be to be able to bring my creativity to the web.
I am really cheering for Adobe to make this thing right, let's hope so!

 

[Alvi]

I love the idea, I will try it later and see how it works.

I don't really like that it's 180$ a year I guess I would just Rent it per month until I get my website done and then stop using it, that would be way cheaper

 

[baldyauldeejit]

Dealbreaker

Sorry, Adobe, but subscription-only - for whatever reason - is a dealbreaker for me.

 

[gugy]

Sorry, Adobe, but subscription-only - for whatever reason - is a dealbreaker for me.

I am not fan of it but in my case I would get it for maybe couple of months, get my website done and then update it a year later with one more month to do it at the most. So $60 is not so bad if the tools are easy to use and produce good results.

 

[blacktape242]

I might think of paying a flat fee for this (like normal software), but not 180 a year...

 

[gugy]

I love the punching bag and gloves in the background at the opening. My guess is that anyone working at Adobe get assaulted rather frequently.

While I am not an advocate for Adobe, they create great products. Photoshop, Illustrator and AE are the best and I make my living using them.
I admire Apple and Adobe. I hope they can coexist for many years and thrive.

 

[tripjammer]

Uhg. That video... half of it was COMPLETE bullsh-t blathery nothingness waste-o-time words. After 2 Mins, got it, quit talking and show something. They kept showing the same 2 or 3 screens with boxes tweaking. Woopti! Show us what $180/year buys, or package it with CS as another add-on software suite.

They need to go to Apple to learn how to make information videos...

 

[ThunderSkunk]

Subscription software. I mean, $20/month or $180/year? Why does everything have to be a subscription ... I like to buy something outright.

If they just charged everyone $180 for the suite til the next version comes out next year, then the people who use it for 2-3 weeks per year to build their sites wouldn't buy it at all.

Full price year long software licenses, & professional web services aren't a one-size-fits-all proportional solution.

 

[studio¹³¹]

rad if it wasnt subscription based...

 

[tripjammer]

While I am not an advocate for Adobe, they create great products. Photoshop, Illustrator and AE are the best and I make my living using them.
I admire Apple and Adobe. I hope they can coexist for many years and thrive.

There is no reason why they shouldn't.....we all know HTML5 is about to take over...and Adobe is right there in the mix...

 

[spencers]

This is awesome. My girlfriend was just asking if there is a program like this out there... She doesn't know a lick of HTML so this would be perfect for her.

Sucks for me because my side job is web design.. If the layman can use this to make a website, there goes my potential client...

 

[iVoid]

If they just charged everyone $180 for the suite til the next version comes out next year, then the people who use it for 2-3 weeks per year to build their sites wouldn't buy it at all.

Full price year long software licenses, & professional web services aren't a one-size-fits-all proportional solution.

I imagine you might be able to rent it for a month and do up your site, then in 5-6 months when you want to update the site, pay for another month. No reason you have pay all 12 months unless you're continually editing the site layout.

But, like others here, I don't like 'renting' stuff.

 

[JGowan]

Hmm maybe Adobe isnt the big bad wolf after all.

At $20 a month or $180 a year: YES THEY ARE.

If they just charged everyone $180 for the suite til the next version comes out next year, then the people who use it for 2-3 weeks per year to build their sites wouldn't buy it at ali.

Then the logical solution is to have a rent solution for those people and a BUY solution for those of us that actually make a living with design. There are plenty of ways to generate a website for those who want to dabble for a 2-3 weeks at a time. This doesn't need to be one of them.

You wait and see -- I see the writing on the wall. Photoshop and the whole sticking Adobe mess will become subscription based before it's all over with.

 

[jocamero]

Why the **** is David Stephens (Sr. Computer Scientist) wearing a purple life jacket @ 00:47 seconds into the video?? Is this a metaphor for him about to jump ship??

 

[gugy]

I imagine you might be able to rent it for a month and do up your site, then in 5-6 months when you want to update the site, pay for another month. No reason you have pay all 12 months unless you're continually editing the site layout.

But, like others here, I don't like 'renting' stuff.

That's my perception as well.
If you have enough work to keep creating websites and subscribe the whole thing for 12 months or over, $180 doesn't seem such a big deal. You should make that at least on a days work.

 

[Alvi]

To all of you that don't like the Subscription based system. Do the math:

Dreamweaver CS5.5 is on it's own, 399$ (20$ A month and possible the same, 180$ a year) meaning you would have to "Rent it" 2 Years to make the purchase worth it. Usually, these programs get updated in 2 years or less, so it might be cheaper to just pay something a month or a year and have the latest product right when it comes out without making a significant cash out.

 

[ricardobeat]

The problem is, traditional designers don't understand interaction design.

And given the downvotes, they don't like to admit it.

Thanks, Adobe, for bringing up another wave of terrible code and design for the web.