Great post, Travis. I’ll reiterate my comment on your earlier post:

Add-ons are also a big expense for us (people who create EE sites) in terms of our time. Not that we wouldn’t have to still learn their features if the add-ons were incorporated in EE itself. But, having to keep track of so many add-ons is something I’m having to factor in as a cost in creating EE sites.

I’d like to see the EE community start to organize add-ons between essential (like, I use Publish Page Improvements on every site now) vs specialized (e.g., like NSM Publish Plus) vs everything else that’s all over the place in terms of features / quality and usefulness.

I definitely want there to be lots of those “everything else” add-ons—and Devot-ee is helping save me some time in tracking those now, too. But, at least some of the “essential” add-ons, imho, would best be incorporated into EE itself.

By Jay Fienberg from Seattle, WA on Apr 6, 2010

I always surprised from the fact that a couple small add-ons can cost more than EE. In my case, I stick to the rule of “10 prices” for commercial add-ons. If the price of 10 add-on copies with the necessary scope exceeds the price of its being worked out, I would prefer the second option. (And I have rule of “don’t touch uniq addons” )

With EE2 counting of free add-ons will increasing. CI makes developing process more easily (plus - allot of free library). But is need a time for free developers to learn new EE and CI (in my case ). Plus documentation still in not ready, I just fined way for global custom filed setting in the middle of March.

P.s. We can discuss long “is eematrix good or not”, but I can tell “Thanks” to eematrix for the questions which his action was opened.

By Max Lazar from UK on Apr 6, 2010

Great post. I have been thinking exactly the same thing about the core product not improving in certain areas because it may be easier / better for a third party to build for it. However 12% is not as large a slice of the market as I thought so there is still quite a bit of room yet for the paid add-ons before they beome dominant. If these commercial add-ons were not available then perhaps site developers would not be quite as ambitious as they have been.

By Simon Cox from London on Apr 6, 2010

One more add-ons switch to commercial http://bit.ly/bJmDYt .
And because SL Google Map is next prime candidate for commercial its looks like I need to add my own Gooogle map fieldtype for EE2 in the “future add-ons” list. Good news ? I have a good experience with google maps developing for ee1.6.8 in the past?

By Max Lazar from UK on Apr 6, 2010

I’m happy to see that more people than me find this trend worrying. I usually don’t use add-ons for core functionality as there’s no knowing if they will still exist at the next upgrade. These days it’s also a question of the price point.

However, I started using FieldFrame and FFMatrix when it became clear that FF & FFMatrix would become part of 2.0. Now I’m stuck with it and FFMatrix gives me/clients an additional cost when upgrading. A dirty trick in my view. It is important that developers are clear about their licensing from the beginning.

This is neither good for EE - as EllisLab doesn’t want to infringe on the work of EE developers, it stifles as Travis says EE development - nor for the community. Why would I contribute to the development of an add-on by reporting bugs etc, if the add-on later goes commercial, if the developer feeds on the community? Is EE then still a community?

What makes (made?) EE so great is (was) the mix of a solid, maintained CMS and a sharing community. It had the best from 2 worlds.

By Yvonne Martinsson from Stockholm on Apr 7, 2010

Now I?m stuck with it and FFMatrix gives me/clients an additional cost when upgrading.

That’s only hypothetical. The only reasons you’d need to upgrade FF Matrix would be if it didn’t work with a future upgrade of EE (which is why it’s only hypothetical because you can’t know for certain that will be the case) or if you required additional functionality not present in your current version. If it’s for additional functionality, then your client should be paying for that anyway.

By John Faulds from Brisbane, QLD on Apr 7, 2010

Expressionengine itself has a discount on multiple licenses. There are not many add-on developers, that i know of, that have a volume discount. For web-designers who make many websites, this could make a difference.

If you run a single website yourself, then a few add-ons might not be a problem for added functionality. As a web-designer, the cost of these, sometimes essential add-ons, slice into each and every website-proposal for every website you estimate.

And i agree totally. Some add-ons that add, or even fix functionality should be integrated into EE itself, but might not be, because of mentioned reasons.

I’m thankful that at least you opened the discussion on this topic. I already discussed this trend at EECI2009. Generally a difficult topic.

By GDmac on Apr 7, 2010

Hear hear.  We’re now evaluating a switch to Drupal (amongst others) from EE, which has been our standard for 3 years plus.

Two reasons:

- Having to pay for addons pushes up the licence cost significantly

- the whole EE1.x-EE2.x debarcle means that realistically our core default has stood still for 2 years, whereas other CMSs have evolved

And if EE doesn’t watch it, and doesn’t build good 3rd party ideas into core, we’ll end up with Drupal anyway, where we’ll have to evaluate and test many different components just to get to a best-practice way of building a site using the software.

Jake.

By Jake Liddell from UK on Apr 7, 2010

Interesting ideas, but I still think it boils down to whether you can implement the add-ons yourself for less than the cost of the addon. In most cases, I’m pretty sure the answer is no.

I like the fact that all of the add-ons I use are not built into the core product so that I can pick and choose a customized feature set for a client rather than every client paying a premium price for bloatware.

In terms of commercial vs free support, I like the comfort of having the developer of the add-on there to help me when supporting a client. They know the product better. With free add-ons, much more of my own time is tied up in supporting it for my clients.

I don’t see this trend as being increasingly expensive over time, but as saving me hours of support and allowing me to offer better/additional functionality at a more than fair cost, and maybe more importantly, in very little time. The client always wants it done yesterday…

-Brent

By Brent on Apr 7, 2010

“Interesting ideas, but I still think it boils down to whether you can implement the add-ons yourself for less than the cost of the addon. In most cases, I?m pretty sure the answer is no.”

I second this statement.  I couldn’t agree more Brent!

By stephen from Kentucky on Apr 7, 2010

I actually kind of like that the cost of an average EE install is $400-$500. It means I don’t have to deal with cheap clients. If you can’t afford $500 for your CMS, sorry, go find another web developer, Mr. Client.

By Rob on Apr 7, 2010

I actually don’t mind paying for the add-on if it is going to increase productivity on a project as well as benefit myself and the client in the long run.

I do agree that some add-ons are a little pricey for what they are and some I would pay more for. So you will have your give and take when it comes to the pricing aspect. I do see that now an average install will run you about $400 which is always billed to the client and if you are not adding that into your proposal/contract shame on you. All these fees that people complain about should be billed to the client and if you client wont pay for them or can’t afford them you need to be looking for better clients.

Clients come to us with problems and we provide them with solutions and if an add-on that cost $100 fits the bill then you add that price into your project. Anyways enough rambling, that’s my 2 cents.

By Brandon Livengood from Canton, Ohio on Apr 7, 2010

Hi Travis,

Leslie here, President of EllisLab. You make some great points here, ones that aren’t lost on us. And, as always, thank you for honesty and perspective.

Since we’ve met in person a number of times and you know you have my respect, I’m going to be less formal than I typically am.

Of the years I’ve come to understand that you tend to be a glass half-empty kind of guy and I tend to be a glass half-full kind of guy. Well, actually, I’m more of a fill my own glass until its full and then help others fill theirs kind of guy.

So let me summarize the article from my perspective.

EE + quality add-ons costs $400-$500. That $500 combo can run an enterprise site like BMI, whose previous CMS cost six figures, easy. And just so we’re clear, that’s $500 in software plus labor competing against $100,000+ software. Or, to be fair it might be as little as $50,000 (maybe they skimped on the more expensive support contract).

EllisLab’s EE development strategy of making an outstanding CMS/framework hybrid where 70% of new features are derived directly from user feedback and impeccable attention to improving the foundational code has enabled incredible add-ons which allow small shops to compete for high-end jobs they previously couldn’t.

And as a result of this successful strategy more and more quality commercial add-ons are being produced by maturing development teams which in turn enable even more high-end opportunities.

Sometimes low-budget projects become cost prohibitive for EE and we agree, this is sad. It would be great if EE could meet every need and every budget but this is regrettable impossibility.

The EE Community has made clear to us that they want EE to get better at landing jobs that are $5k and up (way, way up), not $1k where its EE v. free, so that’s where EE is heading. We want EE plus add-ons to enable high-value opportunities at an unbelievable low barrier to entry.

Oh, yes, and EllisLab should do a better job of supporting Devot-ee, which we are. Go Ryan! And yes, we’re supporting in more than words.

Travis, here’s the water and the glass.

Wishing you much continued success,

Leslie

By Leslie on Apr 7, 2010

Add-ons save time - I don’t think there’s any commercial add-ons out there that are more expensive than the studio time taken in development.

I do, however, think that the price point of add-ons should reflect the level of support that will be provided by the developer. I don’t want to spend $50 only to find that we have to spend several hours bug fixing or managing conflicts.

I’m sure most people do the same but we simply map out all the functionality requirements before providing a cost for any project so that we can build in the cost of additional add-ons. Although I realise that this might price EE out of smaller jobs for some people.

Cheers,
Joe

By Joe from Bath, UK on Apr 7, 2010

Leslie,

Thanks for taking time to respond. That’s admirable.

I believe that EE is a great tool at an outlandishly low price. I would like it to be a better tool.

Movable Type chased the “even more high-end opportunities” enterprise market to the detriment of the low end and middle; that didn’t work out great for them or their developers.

And I’m not saying that because I lack for large projects. I do not want EE to go the high way exclusively, but that’s not the point of this post.

I was writing not just to address EllisLab, but to also reach those commercial add-on writers about the unintended communal consequences of their individual decisions.

I agree with what you say, but you don’t refute the main points I make: That EllisLab has never integrated a commercial add-on, and that the TCO of EE “must now include ... many additional commercial modules” which changes the perception of the product for buyers and for developers.

That’s not glass-half-empty talk. That’s “glass-pretty-full but I think the glass itself could be bigger and then if we could fill THAT, we’d have something to crow about” talk.

I do often write about the ways the glass is less than full, because I want to help fill it, and talking about a problem can help more than just one person toiling alone at the problem.

Filling the glass is why I participate so often on the EE forums and in the EE documentation, it’s why we release the add-ons Hop Studios writes as shareware; and it’s why we organized the EE Roadshows.

You say “here’s the water and the glass” but seriously, if you have suggestions for other ways I personally can help fill the EE glass, let me know and I will do my best.

I am passionate about the success of EllisLab, and the successful growth of the EE community, because therein lies my own success.

TTFN
Travis

By Travis Smith from Vancouver, BC on Apr 7, 2010

Excellent points Travis, thanks for entertaining my informal response. I don’t completely agree with them, but I think its more important that the discussion is out there then to try to resolve it here.

I suggest a follow up at EECI2010 over coffee or a beer

By Leslie on Apr 7, 2010

Totally agree.

I get sometimes frustrated at comment threads where people try to SOLVE a problem in comments. Problems are solved with BEER, people.

By Travis Smith from Vancouver, BC on Apr 7, 2010

I’m arriving at EECI2010 a day early just to make sure i have time to spend with people in person.

I’d be perfectly happy to set that up with you in advance and if you want to get a group together to pick my brain, file grievances, or whatever I’m completely up for that so long as there is coffee or beer involved. Just email me and we’ll get it setup.

By Leslie on Apr 7, 2010

full glasses of beer, i might add.

By Susannah Gardner from Vancouver, Canada on Apr 7, 2010

I think everyone benefits from having a healthy ecosystem around EE providing commercial addons.

It’s almost like the AppStore - if money can be made making all kinds of functionality for EE, that functionality _will_ be made, and EE will be able to power websites that require that functionality (if the client is willing to pay $29.90 extra that is).

Sure - I could see something like Structure being part of the EE core, and maybe it will in time - who knows. But I think EllisLab is right in letting Structure etc. run for a while, because they should support this ecosystem of independent developers releasing commercial addons. In this room they are the elephant, and I respect that they’re trying to watch where they tread.

EllisLab benefits, the independent addon developers benefit and EE users and their client benefits.

By Bj?rn B?rresen from Stavanger, Norway on Apr 8, 2010

I’m hesitant to reply to this post, because, as interesting as it is, I’m in two minds about what I think.

Last year, at EECI, I had a long discussion with two of the EE community’s most prolific and illustrious add-on developers, Brandon Kelly and Leevi Graham. Brandon and Leevi were saying to me that the reason why commercial add-ons can succeed is because EE itself is a commercial product. In the case of platforms such as WordPress and CodeIgniter, which are open-source, commercial products just don’t succeed. I think people expect to pay for commercial add-ons when they invest in a commercial product.

Now, there’s a danger to getting into this mindset. After all, there are free add-ons, and they are often well supported and documented. But, I think it’s fair that when you invest a certain level of time and energy into developing an add-on, you should have the right to expect some kind of reparation. There is a cost to free after all.

By Jamie Rumbelow from Cambridge, UK on Apr 8, 2010

This is a really important discussion…

We need to accept that EE is no longer a $250 CMS, it’s a $500 CMS platform/framework. Personally, I can just about accept this; as EE grows and gets better, what we can achieve with it gets bigger and better too.

In terms of costing a project, most of my clients are paying for the end result and don’t really care how that result is reached (in terms of software licenses) so long as the result is great and the cost reasonable. I take the view that some of the really useful add-ons save more than enough time - or enhance the result sufficiently - that their cost can easily be absorbed on most projects.

I also agree quite strongly with the suggestion that some of the essential add-ons should be rolled into the core product. Let’s see this happen.

The 3rd party add-on scene is still really important too, but this whole area seriously needs attention. Part of the problem is the way these add-ons are presented so inconsistently, sometimes with patchy support and weak documentation, often through sprawling forum threads. It’s a bit of a mess.

I’m not criticising all those generous developers who are giving away their work, but I am suggesting that maybe they could be given more help and encouragement particularly if they choose not to charge. Did anyone mention an App Store for EE add-ons? The whole scene needs to get more professional, a bit more Brandon and Leevi is needed, but for non-commercial as well as commercial add-ons.

Another big problem here is one of perception: people are complaining that EE is incomplete and you need to spend extra $$$ on add-ons. Well, I think we are starting to see too many essential 3rd party add-ons at a cost, but actually, EE should be viewed as a modular platform for which there is a great choice of high quality options. It just isn’t being pitched that way.

Take a look at the official EL addon repository (seemingly ignored by most serious developers) - this has been looking rather lame for some time. There’s so much good stuff missing and many of the add-ons listed are way out of date… Image Sizer: not listed. Field frame: doesn’t exist. Any WYSIWYG add-ons? Only a really old version of LG TinyMCE. It’s almost painful to look at.

Devot-ee is a great start - but EllisLab itself could be more pro-active in steering the whole EE ecosystem in the right direction. Currently there is too much of a disconnect between the core EE product and the add-ons which are becoming so important to it. This needs to change.

Yes, EE is more expensive than it was a year or so ago, but the figures continue to stack up favourably. If some people with a lot of cheap time on their hands drift off to FOSS, then so be it.

To sum up: more essential add-ons should be rolled into the core product; all add-ons need more coherent presentation/support/docs, the top-tier commercial 3rd party add-ons need a stronger connection with EL/EE, and the whole ecosystem needs direction.

By David Stewart from Manchester, UK on Apr 8, 2010

Travis, thanks for this post. I share your thoughts and concern on this subject.

A lot of the commenters are making this about the justification of cost for the time taken to create a plugin. The concern is not the additional price tag for the features but more that the EE team does not include often clearly necessary features into the core product, which would make it easier/faster to manage and deploy new sites without the need to scour the web in search for solutions. This hinders development of the product and any future development of the core in that feature direction.

EE could do so by offering to purchase the module from the developer at a reasonable cost, failing which they could re-create a module that is in obvious need by the community. This compensates the developer and furthers the product.

Another potential route would be the ability to essentially create a tailored download where you can purchase an EE license, select the additional commercial modules/extensions/plugins (why so many names grr), pay for your package, and download the package ready for installation. This would be neater and with EE overseing and capping commercial module pricing, the community is assured of quality and future version compatibility.

Leslie, your response focuses purely on the client cost implication, rather than the concern of usability (easy installation/upgrades/docs) and support for your development community. Features that are in high demand should be added to the roadmap, allowing them to be developed further. For me this isn’t a cost issue, it’s a concern over running numerous different installations, all containing different deployment versions, upgrade/compatibility issues etc.

Also Leslie, I do understand the business/sales case for allowing a large development community to build onto a product, similar to the Salesforce approach, but I think there’s a substantial difference in where this is headed because many of these commercial modules are stifling your own product development and roadmap by reducing your future core featureset, and that’s a very different beast, and the reason for the concern.

Thanks again Travis and Leslie for the discussion.

By Calan from London on Apr 16, 2010

National Park Central Reservations
Live on January 13, 2012

eMarketing101