Adobe Introduces 'Muse' Subscription-Based Website Creation Tools

[newagemac]

Creating a good website is all about the interactions and user experience. This tool helps traditional print designers put working "artwork" on the web but it does nothing to teach them how to build effective websites.

The problem is artwork and decoration is not what the web is about and not what people using your website want.

I shudder to think of the designers who think they can build good websites without coding now. I think this tool will be excellent for prototyping the visual design and content though.

 

[roadbloc]

I'm sorry. I thought for a minute I was on MacRumors. I must be mistaken, this is AdobeRumors.

 

[PeterQVenkman]

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).

Check out Autodesk or Maxon software sometime.

And that's with a free alternative that is looking quite strong these days (Blender).

 

[MondayNgt]

Design it yourself, hire someone to do the coding. I wish I'd build my own house too, but I have no plans to become an engineer/architect/carpenter.

----------



Sure, a good designer can create something beautiful, but the web is software, not posters. A good website requires knowledge, not sensibility. The interaction, information architecture and overall experience are much more important than how it looks (i.e. craigslist, facebook - not that I approve of this). To get the best of those you must understand how it works underneath.

You can't design a good car without having knowledge of mechanics, aerodynamic, driving and the fabrication process, or hiring someone that does. I think we both agree that a "car designer" software would just spit out crappy projects.

Couldn't agree more. Can't tell you how many times a designer (with no coding knowledge) did something radical in design that either wouldn't translate well into development (biggest offender being HTML emails, which need to be conservative even today), or want something 'extra' in terms of involving functionality that was not figured into the development time in the first place.

I have a long time background in both design and web development, 95% of the time able to complete single projects all on my own if needed. And I can't tell you how effective it is to know what you're building, because you can easily spot what potentially could be issues down the line in the design stage and immediately head them off, or design a better solution. Or if another developer is working on it, I know how to make it easy for them.

No, I don't expect all designers to learn how to code, ones that can do both are a more rare breed. But I can guarantee that someone who can design AND code will earn a lot more and get much farther than someone who can't.

 

[AdeFowler]

I love Freeway Pro. I hate Adobe Air.

 

[gugy]

Design it yourself, hire someone to do the coding. I wish I'd build my own house too, but I have no plans to become an engineer/architect/carpenter.

----------



Sure, a good designer can create something beautiful, but the web is software, not posters. A good website requires knowledge, not sensibility. The interaction, information architecture and overall experience are much more important than how it looks (i.e. craigslist, facebook - not that I approve of this). To get the best of those you must understand how it works underneath.

You can't design a good car without having knowledge of mechanics, aerodynamic, driving and the fabrication process, or hiring someone that does. I think we both agree that a "car designer" software would just spit out crappy projects.

Here is the thing, I don't want to pay for it. Second, I don't want to be tied for the rest of my life to someone else to update my site anytime I need to.

That said, I used Freeway in the past. It was good, if Muse is better than that would be more than enough for my needs.

Sure, my site will not have all the amazing things that a professional could provide with professional programing and coding. But the point of Muse is to help someone like me. A designer who have artistic sensibility and some interactive experience but none of programing and want to have the freedom to create for that medium.

Anybody who is a web professional probably think Muse it's garbage and that's fine. Adobe is not really aiming this product at them.

 

[justbobf]

Trouble is these programs all add up. Last time it cost me $800 to upgrade from CS 3 to CS 5. That was a 3-year span from CS 3 to CS 5, having skipped CS 4.

Now, I would need 5 programs: InDesign, Illustrator, Photoshop, Dreamweaver, and now, Muse. If they were all on a subscription basis, that would be $900 per year! Per year! That's a lot of money.

I do like how Muse seems to be a lot like InDesign, seeing how I am very familiar with that program. Too bad about the bloated code...sort of like iWeb writes.

I have seen quite a few comments here about the code and how it is better to stay with WordPress; but! have you ever tried to edit a WordPress site without WordPress? Me either. Talk about bloated software. all those files and all the CSS it writes is crazy. So, as long as they keep making Muse, one could still edit the site...oh! I'm rambling...

 

[jbyun04]

Too bad Muse's trademark doesn't cover crappy software ideas.

 

[kiljoy616]

Adobe's arrogance is ridiculous. "There is no other product out there like it". Really? I use Goldfish Pro and there's nothing I haven't been able to do in it. Then there's...

Freeway Pro, which pioneered WYSIWYG web design 5 years ago.
Rapidweaver
Flux
Sandvox
BlueGriffon
Hype

Don't say stuff like that the Adobe Fangirls will get mad

 

[wilhoitm]

Muse is what the next version of iWeb should have been!

I like Muse! I am switching from iWeb. I guess I have no choice but to switch to something...

I think Apple dropped the ball on this one!

The more I use Muse the more I like it, especially the triggers and targets, the transitions, and the compositions.

 

[Nikso]

Oh please! No!
I already worked with one of this "designers" that handed me layouts made in dreamweaver. To put PHP in that mess was a pain that I'll never try again.

I thing traditional designers can enjoy their static, absolutely positioned, every-page-look-like-another-but-markup-is-completelly-different web sites by them self.

yeah, I'm raging. Ok done.

 

[mlblacy]

gee, really...

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

talking about a unfounded assertion...
besides everyone knows traditional coders can't design their way out of a paper bag...

----------

Don't really care for this idea of renting software.

...but it seems that a lot of the latest interactive tools seem to be built on persistent charges each time you use or create something. Not really jumping with excitement over that. It is akin to charging folks who shoot with digital cameras each time they take a picture. Silly. Greedy. Stupid.

 

[steadysignal]

"Ooh, that sounds interesting, I've definitely got to try..."

"First, download Adobe AIR."

"Uh... riiiight. Next!"

correct.

 

[whokilledkaji]

I saw a few users say that they'd switch from iWeb to Muse... Interesting idea since iWeb support is pretty much finished...
I'd also like to replace iWeb with something just as visual and easy to use. It would be cool if the program allowed for better navigation menus and such.

I'm not a professional website builder, I only have a site for a hobby. As such, do you think this is a good iWeb replacement or is there something better? Cheaper maybe?

 

[mlblacy]

There are two problems I see immediately.

1. It's subscription-based. Why? There are other great web design options that you can simply buy outright, which leads to my next point.

2. An app like RapidWeaver runs circles around Muse, with all of the 3rd-party add-ons and templates available, and you can purchase it for less than half the cost of a 1-year subscription to Muse. Someone who is completely new to website design can pick up RapidWeaver and utilize a training site like RapidWeaver Classroom to build a great website that has cleaner code and more flexibility then what Muse offers. I realize Muse will improve over time, but I am not at all impressed with where it's starting.

Adobe does some things really well, and others poorly. So far this one appears to be the latter.

Rapidweaver is awesome, the price point is a steal, and the third party extensibility offers some amazing features (also at a great price).

Adobe moves towards subscription based payments are their attempt to stop folks from "skipping" upgrades. Their products are bloated and overpriced, and their upgrades are usually not that compelling given the additional cost vs functionality.

On Wordpress, someone was dissing that earlier...
actually I would recommend that any new web designers learn the platform, as I suspect a lot of businesses would want someone to set up their site and then turn the keys over for basic day-to-day maintenance. Wordpress is pretty impressive these days.

 

[thermodynamic]

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.

Given 'Muse' is subscription-only, and is based in HTML5 (which WILL be fragmented by Microsoft, Apple, and others, for their own benefit), Adobe can keep the entry fee. Especially for the SaaS joke... it's cheaper to buy one version, and a subscription model lets a company sit back without having to update or fix their products more regularly. Not when there isn't any monetary incentive to do so.

Time for me to scour the entire Terms of use policy... I wonder if they do the same royalty-free copy rubbish that Google freely employs...

 

[sanqui]

Muse Review

Made by Adobe for sure.

* You cannot import your existing web sites into Muse !! So you "must" create a site from scrath.

* If you leave the subscription, you cannot "update" your site. Meaning, any changes made after, will be ignored by Muse.

So if you ever return to the pay subscription, you have to hand write and duplicate every single one of your changes, links, colors, content, everything, within the Muse panel. Even tags. One by one.

Even adobe purchased hosting, does not communicate with Muse. Muse recommends you set up with adobe hosting, but when you do, you actually get 2 unique web sites that keep overwriting each other !!

Basically it boils down to, create the site in Muse, but if you leave the subscription, you are super screwed. You have to start your site over each time.

What a mess !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!