
Show HN: DatoCMS, a Client-Friendly CMS for Hugo, Jekyll, Middleman, Etc. - steffoz
https://www.datocms.com/how-it-works/
======
DandyDev
The thing you offer is a fancy editor for statically generated websites, but
for the prices you're asking, I would expect you to _host_ the site as well.
Also, looking at the videos/gifs on your website, it seems to me that the
editor isn't even truly WYSIWYG. Sure, the text-areas are WYSIWYG, but you're
not editing the content in the templates themselves, which would be way more
useful.

I also want to second the suggestion to make this FOSS. I know you fear for
the economic repercussions, but unless your product is unique and super game-
changing (which IMHO it isn't), people will mostly pay for the _service_ they
get on top of the product. This can still be a differentiator, even when the
software itself is also available as FOSS.

~~~
steffoz
There are tons of totally free hosting solutions for static websites (Netlify,
Surge.sh)... each has it's pros and cons.. why forcing our clients to host
their sites on our service? Also, it's not our core business, so we prefer to
focus on giving the best modelling/editing CMS experience, at least for now :)

------
neeksHN
I wish SaaS companies (not just DatoCMS) would learn that developers will not
adopt their products if they don't have source access.

This product could have easily been FOSS with it's pricing model based
exclusively on support/hosting.

If you want early-adopters - be hacker-friendly, not money/data-hungry.

~~~
steffoz
It's a very interesting topic.. we're seriously considering open-sourcing it.
Honestly, the fear of having negative economic returns from this operation is
very high :( Is this your main reason for your lack of interest in the product
btw?

~~~
neeksHN
Yes - and while I'm no Richard Stallman - I try to only use FOSS software but
have made concessions for requirements at work (G Suite, Slack, etc).

Would have been an instant install otherwise.

------
MrAwesomeSauce
I do somewhat agree with the opinion of making it open source. Imagine how
much better the platform could be with constant developer input. But I
understand that might not be an easy decision to make.

I've used DatoCMS and I actually really liked it. However the pricing model is
quite steep for the service it provides. I feel that if open sourcing isn't in
the horizon, at least consider expanding what the Free and Basic models
provide.

~~~
steffoz
It's quite interesting to hear that, as ie. Contentful charges 249$/month for
similar set of features :) In which way you'd like our Free and Basic plans to
expand?

