top | item 29084520

(no title)

I’m very impressed with what you’ve discussed here. I think there’s a real market for no-code website builders that are user-friendly.

How do you justify charging $144/year for a static site? Carrd.co offers similar features and charges $19/year for their Pro plan. Serving a static site is basically free. If your editor itself is that valuable, why not sell the editor as a software package and let me take my built site files and host them anywhere?

discuss

putrikarunia|4 years ago

Thank you! We're basing it off the price of other website builders. (For example, Webflow's Basic plan is $12 without their CMS feature). From what I know, Carrd only give you 1 page per site. (We're also building our own CMS feature right now :D)

And yes, it's the editor itself that is our biggest selling point, and we did have users who preferred to use the editor as a software, and then export the code and host them anywhere. Would love to get your thoughts on this approach! What kind of pricing model would work for you if we offer this as a software package?

Gerardox|4 years ago

Hi there! As I read this I wanted immediately to check it up and sign up right away since my ccard pro plan happens to expire tomorrow. Then the price... It would be great to get some kind of very basic plan. I really only need a single page but it was pretty ridiculous in the end to get my website to look ALMOST (I wasn't able to get it to do what I wanted and in the end I wondered if I could not have fought with the html/css myself (I don't do any of this anymore but used to)) like I wanted it to look. Ccars is 20 for a year. I would be willing to pay 3 times more, let's say. But 20/year vs 144/y is quite a difference :/ I will surely save this and pass it on though. Hell, even use it for my dad's website for example :) Cheers!

rchaud|4 years ago

Carrd has a major limitation: it is explicitly a "one-page site" builder.

You cannot create multiple pages and link them together. Unsurprisingly, most Carrd websites I see are promotional of some kind, linking out to a bunch of third party sites, or Amazon affiliate links.

putrikarunia|4 years ago

Yep, thanks for pointing that out!

stevenicr|4 years ago

"charging $144/year for a static site?" - thanks for posting this.

I generally avoid software I can't buy and own, and with pricing like that it seems that are not trying to get pro / semi-pro site builders with this.

With that price, I'd buy pinegrow and build lots of sites for about the same price. ( https://pinegrow.com/#buy )

I guess this is more trying to carve a niche within the niche of wix/ squarespace / wordpress.com / google sites / godaddy sitemaker / every other cpanel host that has a builder, maybe webflow.

With the title 'WYSIWYG website builder' I was really hoping for a netobjects fusion remake - but it seems it's another recurring billing saas trying to take market share from the others already trying to be microsoft frontpage for the web.

I guess this includes hosting (from reading the comments) - so maybe it's more like a DO hosting with premium page builder for an extra few bucks a year kind of thing. There's nothing wrong with that, wish it was in the title.

putrikarunia|4 years ago

Thanks for the input, yes it's a recurring billing saas model, includes hosting, and the WYSIWYG is referring to a WYSIWYG rich text editor, like Medium, Notion, etc.

Thanks for pointing out about Pinegrow as well, this is my first time hearing about it! We focus more towards non-pro users and trying to make the UX as familiar and simple as possible. Seems like Pinegrow is somewhat similar to Webflow and the pricing is more "per user" than per site.

Is there any specific reason why you would like build lots of sites? We did encounter some requests on enabling code export and make a software package pricing so users can host the exported sites themselves, would love to understand your use case!

simplify|4 years ago

This is an odd question. Since when do SaaS companies charge based on hosting cost? If their service is superior, people will pay for the saved time.

monkeynotes|4 years ago

$144/year sounds about right to me. A little higher than SquareSpace and being the new cat in town I'd suggest undercutting them to get traction, but overall I don't think it's far out.