Adobe Announces Discontinuation of 'Muse' Website Building Software

[gshields5541]

Muse was basically one of those apps that allow you to build a website without coding, but didn't allow you to tinker under that Websites' "hood" as it were. I myself are working on My "Big 4 skills (HTML5, CSS3, JavaScript and PHP) so that I eventually won't need something like Muse to build websites.

 

[ETN3]

Until there is a legit alternative to After Effects for my work, I'll be stuck with Adobe for a lot of video work. Motion is not an alternative. Fusion works for some work, but will not work for everything.

Got into Muse last year. The workflow made it easy to get basic websites up and running for projects. As a designer, these sites were very layout based with content, delivering information. They could have been designed with layout in Photoshop or Illustrator if absolutely necessary, but without a way to link or auto-generate basic code, they are not an option either. XD is not for websites. Spark is not a standalone desktop app that works for this either. Unless InDesign is getting website layout functionality in a future release, this leaves no alternatives except Dreamweaver...

Is Affinity Publisher going to support website layouts, or is it really just an InDesign (or original Quark) style replacement?
[doublepost=1522154269][/doublepost]

It's not a replacement for Muse.
Will it work for many people? Yes.
Is it a standalone application that lets me actually work offline and generate HTML & files that end users can upload via FTP? No.

It is a standalone tool albeit a web app. You have to be online to make it work but you can export HTML and files for upload to FTP, no problem. It is also possible to host your site with their excellent CMS system and use the custom code directly in Webflow if you need something that is outside the box.

It's a web-based website tool. That is not what I'm looking for, and have a feeling a lot of Muse users do not want that either. If they did, the tease of Spark getting new features may be another alternative.

What is wrong with a web-based website tool?
But seriously I myself was also skeptical to use a web-based tool for developing websites but after using Webflow for some time I was very impressed. Its very stable and new features are getting added all the time.

For my use most of the time I´m online anyway and it doesn't matter if it´s native or web app. The most important is that it has a very good toolset, workflow, and output compliant good HTML (Which Muse have never done)

I really recommend checking it out.

Yes, Spark has its use but it is more in the neighborhood of Wix and Squarespace and not really a design tool.

 

[bsbeamer]

I have already tried messing with Webflow and it is nowhere near what I'm looking for. The inability to drag/drop and position elements in a design-oriented fashion is immediately a major turnoff. Having to navigate a submenu for layer and image positioning based on scrolling numbers is not something built with layout and design first.

Again, I'm sure Webflow works for some. It does not work for my needs.

 

[vladi]

Do not waste your time on web-based visual editors, they are all half assed. Muse was a huge disruptive workaround but these web-app builders are straight out waste of time unless you want to build same sites over and over again.

Power of Muse came from third party widgets and your time trying to mix and match them. Some of them played well together some didn't but the end result could look spectacular. And that's exactly the core difference between Muse and web builders. While working in Muse you could start from an idea in your head of what you want to achieve and then go have "fun" with widget trial & error until you make it work or until you come to a conclusion that it's not possible yet. With web-app builders you have pretty much linear way of doing things and if that's not your way you are out of luck.

Muse was not always like that, Adobe itself has designed Muse to be very linear just like they are doing with XD now. If there were no 3rd party widgets Muse would have died few years back. Adobe is once again making the same mistake with XD prototyping tool. If you want to build some cool kind of app forget about using XD, it's only useful for cookie cutter apps. That's why XD will die too one day, once app prototyping becomes blah and cools down XD is going bye, bye. Muse was built for the same reason as XD, Adobe wanted to cash in on the trend and that was bottom line from the first day. It was half assed app that somehow got a new life and abilities by hard working people who developed extensions for it.

 

[Mainyehc]

And hope Adobe doesn't buy them out.....

They won’t. Serif is based on the UK, and they have earned a lot of accolades. If they were to sell an Affinity 2 suite, I’d reckon more than 90% of their current use base (me included) would happily pay up instead of skipping one version like they sometimes did with Adobe CS. All in all, I believe those guys are pretty content with their current situation.

 

[AlumaMac]

They won’t. Serif is based on the UK, and they have earned a lot of accolades. If they were to sell an Affinity 2 suite, I’d reckon more than 90% of their current use base (me included) would happily pay up instead of skipping one version like they sometimes did with Adobe CS. All in all, I believe those guys are pretty content with their current situation.

I'm a Serif convert (Adobe user for 25 years), but never underestimate ones ability to sell out if given the opportunity.

 

[ETN3]

I have already tried messing with Webflow and it is nowhere near what I'm looking for. The inability to drag/drop and position elements in a design-oriented fashion is immediately a major turnoff. Having to navigate a submenu for layer and image positioning based on scrolling numbers is not something built with layout and design first.

Again, I'm sure Webflow works for some. It does not work for my needs.

I see your point of having the ability to drag things around like an ordinary design tool, what makes Webflow different is that they respect the standard CSS/HTML way of doing things instead of trying to "hack" a solution so that you can design everything as a traditional design tool. And the result is quality code output. I know a lot of designers don´t care about code as long as they just can get it to look what they want but it matters.

A lot of designers also use Webydo. When I checked it out some years ago I was not impressed with the code output but maybe it´s better now. Worth checking out.
https://www.webydo.com/

Do not waste your time on web-based visual editors, they are all half assed. Muse was a huge disruptive workaround but these web-app builders are straight out waste of time unless you want to build same sites over and over again.

This is not true, most of them are half-baked but not all.

 

[Zax]

Try SparkleApp.com

 

[howlingbasset]

RapidWeaver

Freeway is still going (ish) ... https://www.softpress.com
[doublepost=1522346505][/doublepost]Anyone remember PageMill?
[doublepost=1522346568][/doublepost]

*sigh* I wanted Indesign for the web and it basically delivered that.

What other WISIWIG desktop publishing type program should I move to now?

Freeway ... https://www.softpress.com

 

[LongRun]

Finally joined you here at MRs,

This topic is what drove me to it. Dragged my feet to sign-on with Adobe CC TODAY, after my umpteen programs could no longer be supported by MacOS (( Stretched them as far as they could go.

To top that, thought I'd see what Muse was all about (Used Claris HomePage > GoLive > Dreamweaver...) in hopes it would further streamline Web design work. Just two hrs ago, I watched the obligatory videos then downloaded the software.

Just now, UNINSTALLED it. Saw a teeny-tiny note about it being discontinued! Then hopped over there. Thanks for helping me dodge a huge bullet.

The learning curve we have to shuffle through daily between all the technology, cables/connectors, much less the software anymore is beyond mind-boggling. Even one minute is precious these days. And one minute saved is one, well, earned.

Will stick with DW and continue to plough through the plethora of programs/add-ons/'n apps...

Reminds me of the days of PageMaker vs. Quark, and Freehand vs. Illusrator — I hopped on the PM/FH train and never looked back—until of course everything went South.

With great appreciation to you...and with great sadness for those who have "invested" so much sweat-equity into the product.

 

[Happy-Mac]

Finally joined you here at MRs

Welcome LongRun! Glad to see you took the leap. I was a lurker for quite some time before I joined back in 2012, and I'm glad I signed up.

I've used DW in the past after I got tired of free editors, and started working somewhere that would provide it.

I got irked though when DW started filling up my Console with error messages, about 5 message every second whenever it was running.

I ditched it for TextWrangler, now free BBEdit, and haven't looked back.

I do miss DW's auto-completes for tags and CSS definitions and in-app live previews. But, I only use it anymore when I need to paste-in something huge to design mode and extract the HTML (like a densely populated spreadsheet), which only happens maybe once a year at my current job.

You're right, it is tough changing things up after using an app for so long.

Hopefully DW treats you better than it does me.

 

[LongRun]

...I got tired of free editors, and...Hopefully DW treats you better than it does me.

Thanks so much Happy-Mac. Appreciate your reply!!

Seems like a new program is introduced daily vying for our attention & $$. DW is my starting point since it's the last one I was familiar with, but am open to any suggestions. Don't need the "latest-and-greatest"— but ever seeking the "greatest". Till then, I'll look into TextWrangler, and a couple others folks have mentioned here. You guys are great.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
This may not be the correct place to ask/post this...landed on this page that describes a number of design programs/apps. See and have reviewed some that you all have recommended. I respect your opinion. Your thoughts?
https://alternativeto.net/software/sparkle/

 

[Mainyehc]

I'm a Serif convert (Adobe user for 25 years), but never underestimate ones ability to sell out if given the opportunity.

Who’s to say they weren’t given one already? All the feature pilfering that has been going on at Adobe (come on, even the corner tool?) suggests that they definitely acknowledge Serif and are at least trying to compete with Affinity on features (a futile attempt from a bloat-happy company, as we’re not jumping ship because of features – some of which Affinity still sorely lacks – but for its killer price, stellar performance and unmatched cross-compatibility instead); but they can either have entered that route directly, or have tried a buy-out first.

And those Serif guys, even if they are sometimes boastful to a fault (all those missed deadlines didn’t sit very well with their user base, I’m afraid), can also be pretty mum about that kind of thing. The last news I wanted to hear as a Serif customer would be of a buy-out attempt, even if failed, because after that one there could still be another one, and another, and so on… and they know that very well.

 

[charliemacos]

Seems be happening quiet frequently with various website builders. I would recommend EverWeb since it provides a lot of the same features that Muse did but without the subscription.

Other Mac apps like RapidWeaver and Sandvox don't seem to be getting a lot of updates. EverWeb seems to get updates consistently with a pretty big community of widgets and add-ons behind it.

 

[stainless]

Serif can't release Affinity Publisher soon enough. Once I get a VIABLE (no, Quark is not viable) replacement for the Adobe Suite of print apps, I'm making a serious effort to boot Adobe out of my Applications folder.

Just curious, why isn't Quark a viable option? I'm sure there are many reasons, but just wondering... I've been out of the publishing magazine front for a while, so just wondering, as I like to stay on top of these things just in case.

Thanks in advance!!

 

[MacGizmo]

Just curious, why isn't Quark a viable option? I'm sure there are many reasons, but just wondering... I've been out of the publishing magazine front for a while, so just wondering, as I like to stay on top of these things just in case.

Thanks in advance!!

For me, these are the reasons

• Quark XPress alone costs $849, and if you want "upgrades, it costs an additional $169 per year.
• Quark XPress has been passed around like a bong at a frat party. I think they're on their 4th owner. That's not exactly a ringing endorsement for stability.
• Quark's current ownership group has publicly stated that their focus is not on print publishing with Quark XPress.
• Schools aren't teaching Quark, they're teaching InDesign. This doesn't bode well for the future of XPress.
• If you're looking to move away from the subscription model Adobe uses, you're going to move to Affinity Designer, Photo and Publisher, not a single app that costs more than the Adobe subscription.
• Quark XPress isn't the universal print publishing app it once was. Very few content producing agencies and firms use it. It's pretty much limited to a few select companies with a high-investment in plugins.
  
• I don't personally know a single designer, ad agency, design firm, publication or newspaper that uses it. No clients either. On the other hand, I already know of several designers and clients that use Affinity Designer & Photo - amazing considering how new the apps are.

Since Adobe InDesign is the standard, their has to be a significant reason/value to switching to another app. Quark doesn't offer anything at all in this regard. Affinity apps at least maintain a compatibility with existing files, a MUCH cheaper initial cost and no subscription.