+1-888-365-2779
Try Now
More in this section

Forums / General Discussions / Sitefinity 4.0 RC

Sitefinity 4.0 RC

183 posts, 0 answered
  1. Andrei
    Andrei avatar
    553 posts
    Registered:
    27 Nov 2008
    19 Nov 2010
    Link to this post
    Hi everyone,

    Just to say that we followed the advice and got in touch with sales@sitefinity.com and
    are in the middle of a constructive discussion. I think we are finding some middle-ground.

    Its worth getting in touch with them.

    Many thanks,
    Andrei
  2. Gary
    Gary avatar
    91 posts
    Registered:
    19 Jul 2007
    19 Nov 2010
    Link to this post
    @Bob (regarding concurrent users usage via AtomPub):

    I see your point that the occupied slot  in the concurrent connections count lasts a very short time since no session is maintained for AtomPub requests.

    My concern is for the scenario in which 5 (or whatever) concurrent CMS users are logged in to the administrative end, and then a user attempts to publish a blog post via AtomPub. In this case, this user will see a high-level error message from LiveWriter such as "An unexpected error occurred" or (perhaps even worse) report an actual 401 "unauthorized" message (or whatever http response code you return).

    This goes against the "it should just work" principal that is important for the non-technical community of users, and the IT staff that support them.

    Can you validate that my assumption about this experience from an AtomPub client is valid, and if so, would you consider changing your approach so that AtomPub requests do NOT count towards the concurrent connections count?

    Thanks,
    Gary
  3. Ivan Dimitrov
    Ivan Dimitrov avatar
    16072 posts
    Registered:
    25 Nov 2016
    22 Nov 2010
    Link to this post
    Hi Gary,

    In the current implementation of Sitefinity RC

    - if you have 5 backend users that have been logged in and they are actively use the backend it would not be possible to create a new blog post through live writer, because you have to authenticate another user  - the 6th user which is not allowed by our licensing policy.

    - if you have 4 logged in users there would not be a problem to authenticate a user through live writer - the 5th user.  As Bob said the authentication connections last very shortly and the slot is immediately released for another user that can post using completely different credentials.

    LiveWriter is just a feature that we support and allow users to create content objects through it.

    Kind regards,
    Ivan Dimitrov
    the Telerik team
    Do you want to have your say when we set our development plans? Do you want to know when a feature you care about is added or when a bug fixed? Explore the Telerik Public Issue Tracking system and vote to affect the priority of the items
  4. Bob
    Bob avatar
    330 posts
    Registered:
    24 Sep 2012
    22 Nov 2010
    Link to this post
    Gary,

    I think you have a valid point and we should consider it. I will bring up the subject on the next licensing meeting.

    All the best,
    Bob
    the Telerik team
    Do you want to have your say when we set our development plans? Do you want to know when a feature you care about is added or when a bug fixed? Explore the Telerik Public Issue Tracking system and vote to affect the priority of the items
  5. IT
    IT avatar
    52 posts
    Registered:
    30 Sep 2008
    22 Nov 2010
    Link to this post
    Is there internal agreement at Telerik about concurrent users? Two posts up Ivan said,

    "if you have 5 backend users that have been logged in and they are actively use the backend it would not be possible to create a new blog post through live writer, because you have to authenticate another user  - the 6th user which is not allowed by our licensing policy."

    Freudian slip? The bit I highlighted in bold would indicate that concurrent == "logged in and they are actively use [sic] the back end". 

    Are we going to hear the final word on concurrency and the back-end before Thanksgiving? I'll be able to enjoy my turkey a lot more if I'm not thinking about this issue. As much as I'd like to have it be concurrent users in the back-end, I'd be happy just knowing one way or the other.

    Thanks!
  6. Eric Wallace
    Eric Wallace avatar
    66 posts
    Registered:
    08 Oct 2009
    22 Nov 2010
    Link to this post
    So let me get this straight regarding the concurrent users. I have an Intranet built on SF 3.7 that uses Active Directory authentication so users never log in or out. The majority of our users are in some kind of A/D role that gives them access to the administrative section. So the way I am understanding this, in order for our intranet to work in 4.0, we would need to go from the $899 original standard edition license, to the $20,000 enterprise license in order for our intranet to continue to function if more than 5 people (with some kind of administrative access) are on it at once? If my interpretation is correct, it would cost someone 2124.7% more to do the same thing in 4.0 as we did in 3.7? I realize there is a 50% discount so the actual cost would be closer to 10K, but the principal is the same.

    Look, we all know that Sitefinity has long been a steal price-wise. The 2K standard edition is digestible and probably accurate, assuming that you don't LOSE functionality over 3.7.

    The way I see it, the way to keep everyone happy both here and in meetings with the board of directors, is to keep the pricing for the standard, professional, and enterprise editions the same, but drop the concurrent users restriction on the professional edition. Or maybe even add granular permissions to the standard edition.
  7. Gary
    Gary avatar
    91 posts
    Registered:
    19 Jul 2007
    22 Nov 2010
    Link to this post
    This post contributes some thoughts to the "concurrent users limitation":

    In the Sitefinity marketing materials, benefits to Business Users are always specifically identified. I applaud Sitefinity for realizing this, and not following suit with a lot of other companies that simply provide a long list of features. Of the highlighted benefits is "Perform your everyday tasks easier". In my view, this value statement is undone by the concurrent user limitations, because it makes it harder for business users to perform their everyday tasks -- not easier. The limitation means that sometimes a business user can't get their task completed; that they have to find a "Sitefinity administrator" for assistance or come back later and try again, or they can't post of blog entry for a nonsensical reason (from the perspective of the business user).

    I can see in some organizations that the only aspect of Sitefinity that will be remembered by business users is that it's the "tool that they can't always get into it". Every other wonderful feature will never get a mention if they hit this issue more than once or twice.

    For some organizations, it may never be an issue. For others, it becomes an instant deal-breaker. The problem is that the number of concurrent users needed by an organization is not solely related to the organization size / financial resources; it is also the structure and behavior of the organization that is big factor in the level of concurrency that is needed. 

    With the exception of the concurrent user limitations, I like the approach taken with offering multiple editions of Sitefinity. It caters effectively to hobbyists through large enterprises, imposing practical limitations on the amount of content in the lower editions, and providing more advanced capabilities exclusively in the higher editions.

    I'm not trying to be a "second guesser" on every decision that Telerik makes. They've put a tremendous amount of effort into creating a market leading product, and I'm sure that they've done plenty of research into how it should be marketed. BUT, I would like to make the supposition that simply removing the concurrent users limitations on the Standard edition and up would actually increase total Sitefinity revenue in the long-term rather than decrease it. Why? -- because although there may be fewer Enterprise licenses, the adoption rate isn't hindered by this pre-purchase and post-purchase customer satisfaction issue. That seems like a win-win for everybody, doesn't it?

    Regards,
    Gary

  8. Markus
    Markus avatar
    2763 posts
    Registered:
    25 Nov 2005
    22 Nov 2010
    Link to this post
    Has anyone an Standard Edition up and running and tried to open a user twice (on front-end on back-end) to solve the concurrent user situations.

    And did you try to enter twice the same e-mail address?

    If the same e-mail address is not working the concurrent stuff realy kills the product. Because havint to open all users twice may be dooable. But having two email adresses for each sure wont be possible.

    Anyone can try this.

    Markus

    PS: I still don't get my stuff running with my share hosting provider thats why I ask you guys.

  9. Truman
    Truman avatar
    7 posts
    Registered:
    12 Nov 2010
    22 Nov 2010
    Link to this post
    I totally agree with concurrent users being the biggest hindrance with everyday use. I can also imagine how many 3rd party integrations will be a problem... things will just work randomly. You just cannot rely on Sitefinity communicating with other apps anymore.

    I have been testing out Standard Edition in our development environment and we have already faced issues with the concurrent users limit. The concurrent users limitation is LAME! It makes the use of Sitefinity UNPLEASANT! Sitefinity is becoming a total buzz kill..
  10. Jean
    Jean avatar
    90 posts
    Registered:
    06 Nov 2008
    24 Nov 2010
    Link to this post
    Hi There,

    I'm looking at the pricing/feature set from an enterprise perspective, and for me it is not bad. I do only have the following comments:

    1.    For Professional, I'm happy to pay the money, but the llimit on concurant CMS users is a problem. I would like to see that as unlimited, to pay an extra $12000 for that does not making sense, specialy when we would not require the source code.
    2.    Also, in my view load balancing support should be a given, seeing that this is build on asp.net technology which has this as an inherent feature.

    Other than this we are already planning our upgrade path with the RC and converting our existing custom modules.

    Regards,
    Jean Erasmus 
  11. Steve
    Steve avatar
    3037 posts
    Registered:
    03 Dec 2008
    24 Nov 2010
    Link to this post
    Final decision on Concurrent Users listed here

    Thank you all for the valuable input and ideas!
     
    There are cases where users have dual functions on a website - login to make content edits or simply authenticate to see a restricted page. For websites with such user requirements, it would be best to have two membership providers. One would be for users managing the website's content and the other provider would be for users who will authenticate onto the public facing website to view otherwise restricted content.
     
    The login control on the public website can be implemented, so that it works only with the "public users" membership provider. Sitefinity users with dual function will need to have two different accounts in this case. Users won't need to do the thinking which account they should use, because they will know that the "front end" login control will let them login with one credentials and the "backend" login control will let them login with another credentials.
     
    If an organization has many users who manage the website and it is inconvenient for them to manage two accounts, then the best solution is to upgrade to the Sitefinity Enterprise Edition and take full advantage of its unlimited concurrent users.
     
    It is a great suggestion to count concurrent users only when they are actually making edits or browsing the backend of the system. There is no question that it is possible to be done. There is nothing impossible when it comes to computer science. However, there is usually a trade off cost involved for everything. If we count the concurrent users as @Kevin suggested, this will have a great impact on the performance of Sitefinity. Not just the back end, but also the public facing part of the website. We would need to make a lot of checks on user's behavior. It is a question whether to make all Sitefinity websites very slow or to have users with dual function maintain two accounts, if they cannot afford the Enterprise Edition. If we can figure out how not to count users only when they are actually editing stuff without a trade off cost, then you can be sure that we will do it.
     
    On the other hand, please, note that with one license for the Enterprise Edition, an organization can build both its website and intranet and still have unlimited users on both. The intranet can be a sub-domain such as http://intranet.mycompany.com. I don't know whether there is a better bargain on the market for a similar product for both a website and an intranet.
     
    Browse and Edit will be available in the official Sitefinity 4.0 release. In Sitefinity 3.7 if a user is browsing a page that they want to quickly go and edit, the user can just add the following query string to the page url: "?cmspagemode=edit" and hit enter (e.g. www.website.com/services/promo.aspx?cmspagemode=edit). An alternative would be to use the control that @stormy mentioned.
     
    Greetings,
    Anton
    the Telerik team
  12. Richard
    Richard avatar
    24 posts
    Registered:
    25 Apr 2008
    24 Nov 2010
    Link to this post
    It is a great suggestion to count concurrent users only when they are actually making edits or browsing the backend of the system. There is no question that it is possible to be done. There is nothing impossible when it comes to computer science. However, there is usually a trade off cost involved for everything. If we count the concurrent users as @Kevin suggested, this will have a great impact on the performance of Sitefinity. Not just the back end, but also the public facing part of the website. We would need to make a lot of checks on user's behavior. It is a question whether to make all Sitefinity websites very slow or to have users with dual function maintain two accounts, if they cannot afford the Enterprise Edition. If we can figure out how not to count users only when they are actually editing stuff without a trade off cost, then you can be sure that we will do it.

    Please keep in mind that the readers of this forum are .NET developers. This is not a plausible explanation. Please have one of your developers elaborate on the technical problems.

    Maintaining two accounts per user is not possible. Setting up a second membership provider? Once we pay the cost of Sitefinity we expect NOT to have to roll our own functionality for common use cases. You are making your licensing so restrictive that competing products are beginning to look much more attractive.
  13. Neil
    Neil avatar
    82 posts
    Registered:
    21 Oct 2006
    24 Nov 2010
    Link to this post
    Two system login accounts fails most audits, everytime I now see concurrent it reads currentcon.
  14. Eric Wallace
    Eric Wallace avatar
    66 posts
    Registered:
    08 Oct 2009
    24 Nov 2010
    Link to this post
    If this is in fact your final decision, it is truly a sad day for Telerik. We built our intranet with your product and chose it over your competitors because you did not follow a similar licensing model, and also with the belief that we would be able to take advantage of all the new features in 4.0 that have been touted for so long without this behemothic price increase.

    I feel burned, blindsided and mislead by your company. Frankly, for an organization of our size (~80), it would be close to the same amount to purchase Sharepoint Server, even with Enterprise CALs for each member of our organization so we can easily integrate with our other systems, as well as the new hardware to run it. I know this for a fact as I have priced it. As wonderful as I think Sitefinity is, it pales in comparison with the features of MOSS for an Intranet.

    if the concurrent user restrictions hold as they are now, I would strongly advise anyone reading this NOT to choose Sitefinity for their intranet platform.
  15. Steve
    Steve avatar
    3037 posts
    Registered:
    03 Dec 2008
    26 Nov 2010
    Link to this post
    Good news for non-edu (at least if you buy soon)...the 60% is NOT the 50% + 10% educational (which I initally thought)...it's the discount on the upgrade to Pro or Ultimate by the end of the year. 

    So this means any org can take advantage of the initial savings (since the pricing isn't changing)

    ...and that drops to 50% in 2011 until April 15th.
  16. Aaron
    Aaron avatar
    24 posts
    Registered:
    15 Feb 2008
    13 Dec 2010
    Link to this post
    Agree. We will be working on transitioning our 5 sites to Share point.
  17. Steve
    Steve avatar
    3037 posts
    Registered:
    03 Dec 2008
    13 Dec 2010
    Link to this post
    telerik fyi, you're sending notification emails out with all of our email addresses in the "to" field... :)

    (see attached)
  18. Samir Vaidya
    Samir Vaidya avatar
    261 posts
    Registered:
    05 Feb 2005
    25 Jan 2011
    Link to this post
    It is too bad that there is no support for v. 4.0 for this module, but it has Google Analytics functionality built in and it only costs $149. 

    http://www.sitefinity.com/marketplace/modules/sitefinity-3-ultimate-suite.aspx
  19. Samir Vaidya
    Samir Vaidya avatar
    261 posts
    Registered:
    05 Feb 2005
    25 Jan 2011
    Link to this post
    I believe that Sitefinity has overly reduced the functionality of the free/community edition compared to Kentico CMS.  Most of the features that have been introduced in v. 4.0 are not available in any capacity whatsoever.  This is contrary to many of the features available in Kentico CMS Free Edition.  Many features are available in the Free Edition as well, only in a limited form. 

    http://www.kentico.com/Downloads/KenticoCMS_5_Pricing_for_Web.pdf

    Even the Kentico CMS Small Business edition currently offers more capabilities than the Sitefinity Small Business edition.

    In addition, the licensing for Kentico CMS Free Edition allows for use for commercial as well as personal websites.  This contrasts with Sitefinity CMS Community Edition which does not allow for any commercial usage for websites.

    If you ask me, Kentico CMS Free Edition seems a lot more appealing than Sitefinity CMS Community Edition with the new exorbitant pricing structure.
  20. Samir Vaidya
    Samir Vaidya avatar
    261 posts
    Registered:
    05 Feb 2005
    25 Jan 2011
    Link to this post
    Even though Sitefinity v. 4.0 has recently been released, I believe it would be great for customers if you continued to offer licensing for Sitefinity v. 3.7.  The problem with using Sitefinity v. 4.0 is that the licensing costs are exorbitantly high for features that should be present even in the Community/Free edition.  In addition, ALL of the marketplace modules do not have support for Sitefinity v. 4.0 yet, therefore, this leaves new customers with absolutely no options to be able to use the Marketplace modules if they are exclusively licensed for v. 4.0!  There is also no estimated timeframe for when all of the currently available Marketplace modules will be updated to v. 4.0.  I believe that the enforcement of the new licensing for Sitefinity v. 4.0 should definitely not occur until all of the Marketplace modules have been updated and refreshed for v. 4.0 support.  Until then, customers should still be able to purchase licenses for v. 3.7.
  21. Samir Vaidya
    Samir Vaidya avatar
    261 posts
    Registered:
    05 Feb 2005
    25 Jan 2011
    Link to this post
    How does Sitefinity v. 4.0 stack against the feature set for Ektron CMS 400.Net?

    http://www.ektron.com/Products/Web-CMS/Features/
  22. Eric Wallace
    Eric Wallace avatar
    66 posts
    Registered:
    08 Oct 2009
    25 Jan 2011
    Link to this post
    Guys, unfortunately Telerik has dug their heels in regarding 4.0 licensing. They were completely unwilling to work with our company even though implications were made to us regarding the upgrade path for our intranet, and they stood to make much more profit from us over the long run by working with us but still refused. As you'll notice, Vassil has not responded to any concerns in quite some time.

    I know one thing for sure, and that is Telerik is no longer about enabling the developer, and I for one will not spend one more minute of my time helping them resolve any issues I find with the products we currently have under license as I've done in the past. They want to play with the big boys, they better pony-up and have big boy quality control and support. When I find an issue with Microsoft CRM for instance, Microsoft doesn't ask me to "zip up my CRM project and send it to them". Those days are over for sure. The business side of me understands all this, but the tech side of me is quite disheartened.
  23. Markus
    Markus avatar
    2763 posts
    Registered:
    25 Nov 2005
    25 Jan 2011
    Link to this post
    Hello Everybody

    It's not allways about the features but also about the support you are getting. I agree with Samir that it would have been nice to still be able to buy 3.7.

    Even get an discount because its old and outdated :-). Just kidding. Love 3.7 and hopped it would be around longer.

    But I just read today this quote: "Don't be afraid to give up the good to go for the great" John D. Rockefeller

    So 3.7 was good - and 4.0 WILL be great. Just give Telerik 6 month to catch up with 3.7.

    One thing we seem to have noticed is that 4.0 needs more resources and can be a bit hard to run in shared hosting envirements (where small business would be) but if you look at the system requirements of the CMS you linked : http://www.ektron.com/Resources/System-Requirements/  you need at least 4 GB RAM.

    So my advice is try to stay around for 6 months and you will have again one of the best CMS at hand.

    Markus

  24. Georgi
    Georgi avatar
    3583 posts
    Registered:
    28 Oct 2016
    25 Jan 2011
    Link to this post
    Hello Markus,

    Thanks for your comment.

    You are generally right, but I want to mention one thing.
    Both systems have pros and cons. For me, I believe the 4.0 has more things to offer, compared to 3.x. There is especially one big thing that 4.0 has - potential. 4.0 is a platform that you can work on. I am really hoping that we'll get a whitepaper soon from a client, showing this potential - 14 sites hosted in one installation, together with a development story and ideas. 

    Our main focus now is to strength the documentation and the samples to show this potential, and of course catch up on features. You will see many things that we are missing now, even with the next official release in Q1 ;).

    Kind regards,
    Georgi
    the Telerik team
    Do you want to have your say when we set our development plans? Do you want to know when a feature you care about is added or when a bug fixed? Explore the Telerik Public Issue Tracking system and vote to affect the priority of the items
  25. MB
    MB avatar
    302 posts
    Registered:
    09 Jan 2005
    25 Jan 2011
    Link to this post
    @Markus: I agree with Samir that it would have been nice to still be able to buy 3.7.

    Perhaps not so much "buy" 3.7, but I definitely think Telerik should (on request) provide a 3.7 license with 4.0 purchases at the moment, so that you can implement using 3.7 if the missing features in 4.0 are a showstopper for you. Microsoft do this with every O/S release... it's called downgrade rights.

    The missing FileSystem Storage Provider is a case in point... it's not even scheduled yet (although Q2 has been mooted) which means that if your design depends on it, you're out of luck with Sitefinity.

    I remain a Telerik supporter and I agree that V4 should be a much better product than 3.7, once it's complete and debugged, but personally, I have the feeling that won't be before the Q3 release.
  26. Phill Hodgkinson
    Phill Hodgkinson avatar
    362 posts
    Registered:
    10 Nov 2004
    25 Jan 2011
    Link to this post
    @Markus and @MB

    The issue here is that if they let people buy a SF 4 license and then download and use SF 3.7 then everyone would just buy the $499 Small Business License and and in effect have a stable, feature rich version of SF that has none of the restrictions that 4.0 has. In effect SF would be cheaper than ever! So it's just not going to happen in my opinion. Again an example of how they've shot themselves in the foot and a large number of their current and potential customers, all with one bullet...

    Just my 2 cents.
    Phill
  27. MB
    MB avatar
    302 posts
    Registered:
    09 Jan 2005
    25 Jan 2011
    Link to this post
    @Phil

    Not wishing to make more of this than necessary, but would not the "(on request)" part cope with that ?

    i.e. You only get a 3.7 license by asking for it, when buying a 4.0 license... and so it shoud be simple enough to limit this to buying 4.0 Standard or higher.

    Analogy... you don't get downgrade rights with all versions of Windows.
  28. Samir Vaidya
    Samir Vaidya avatar
    261 posts
    Registered:
    05 Feb 2005
    28 Jan 2011
    Link to this post
    I think restricting the number of pages to 25 for the Community edition and 50 pages for the Small Business edition is absolutely ridiculous.  It is naive to believe that Small Business sites can easily fit all of their information into just 50 pages.  By being restricted to just 50 pages, it is almost like they are forcing you to cram all the information you can onto the least number of pages. 

    I can understand if they limit the feature capabilities of modules within Sitefinity, but it is absolutely absurd to restrict the number of pages which can be published.  If there HAS to be page constraint, make it something more reasonable like 250 or 500 pages.  Most Small Business websites would be able to fit into that page constraint, but 50 pages can add up really quick and it is just not a practical constraint.  As another user stated, you don't see Microsoft following this type of licensing policy with Visual Studio (even the Express editions).  There isn't a constraint that says "you can only develop 50 projects" with the Express edition or "only 100 projects" with the Professional edition.  Instead, they remove features.  Express Edition does not give you an integrated IDE experience across all development languages.  Professional Edition does not have some of the Testing and Architecture features that are in Premium Edition and you can only get Test Manager Professional and Intellitrace with Visual Studio Ultimate Edition.  That is the licensing model that Telerik Sitefinity should use.  Limit by feature set, not by number of pages.

    If the new Microsoft Orchard CMS project turns out to be able to accomplish what I need, I may end up using that instead of Sitefinity CMS:  http://orchard.codeplex.com/.  Kentico had the right idea with their licensing model.  They did not originally have a free commercial and personal edition, but now they do in order to more directly compete in the CMS market place.  Also, even though Umbraco and AxCMS are not that appealing as CMS systems, they are still FREE
  29. Samir Vaidya
    Samir Vaidya avatar
    261 posts
    Registered:
    05 Feb 2005
    31 Jan 2011
    Link to this post
    In regards to the v. 4.0 licensing model, it would be even be acceptable and (probably most agreeable with most end-users) if Sitefinity v. 4.0 followed a module-based licensing model similar to a manner to how other numerous organizations follow.  One of the module-based licensing organizations I have worked with in the past has been Globalscape in regards to their EFT Server product.  http://www.cuteftp.com/eft/  Interestingly enough, they recently released their EFT Server product as a completely free base product.  However, if you want to add additional capabilities to the product, you can select amongst their various modules and purchase them individually such as SSH support, Auditing and Reporting, FIPS support etc. 

    Therefore, in regards to Sitefinity v. 4.0, customers could purchase a product such as Small Business edition and then purchase any additional modules they needed depending on their needs and requirements.  For example, if they wished to use FormBuilding, they could purchase that module, if they wanted support for Workflow or Multilingual support, they would simply purchase these individual modules for a reasonably priced amount.

    I think this is really the best licensing model for Sitefinity v. 4.0 to follow if Telerik continues to remain with the current pricing structure.  In this manner, customers could get the features that they want without having to pay an arm and a leg for more expensive editions of their software.
  30. Samir Vaidya
    Samir Vaidya avatar
    261 posts
    Registered:
    05 Feb 2005
    02 Feb 2011
    Link to this post
    In regards to one of the responses regarding Small Business licensing--I completely disagree regarding the ability to pay for a $1999 license vs. a $499 license.  The current licensing model available with Sitefinity FORCES businesses to at least purchase the Small Business edition (the Community edition is no longer an option).  Therefore, for a Small Business (such as a startup business, personal consulting business etc.) which only has an income of a few thousand dollars total each year, suddenly having to spend $1999 of that on a content management system is simply too much to ask of a Small Business.  In addition, prior to the generalized use of Content Management Systems, people used to create a tremendous amount of content on a very small number of pages in order to reduce the amount of pages they would have to manually modify through a tool such as Dreamweaver etc.  This resulted in pages which might seem to scroll endlessly.  However, once users have moved to Content Management Systems, they have moved towards smaller content pages and simplified and improved the navigation of the overall web site.  Therefore, a largely HTML-driven website which may have been 20-30 pages in the past, can suddenly explode to 60 or 80 pages very easily due to the ease of creation of these pages. 

    Also, if you consider the overall mentality of businesses which desire a "web presence", the overall mentality is that is should be reasonably inexpensive to build an online presence.  Even though most businesses might shy away from a $769 expense on creating a website (plus $200+ yearly maintenance costs), they could still manage that expense with the functionality they were receiving.  However, attempting to justify $1999 for initially creating a website is unreasonable for most businesses.  I have spoken to several businesses that originally adopted Sitefinity decided that it was getting too expensive for them and instead opted for simply going with the website creation tools offered by various hosting providers such as GoDaddy and others.  These systems provide CMS functionality using free tools such as Joomla, Drupal and various others at a fraction of the cost of purchasing a Sitefinity license.  Most businesses that desire a CMS but do not want pay most of their revenue into using a CMS will now tend to avoid Sitefinity and opt for other CMS systems instead.
183 posts, 0 answered
1 2 3 4 5 6 7