3 ms·
It depends on the lens through which you want to view the addressable market for adoption. For sure, Wordpress has deservedly captured a huge part of the curre
by mattzito 5y ago
It depends on the lens through which you want to view the addressable market for adoption. For sure, Wordpress has deservedly captured a huge part of the current market for CMS-powered websites. It's very powerful, it's performant, it's got an ecosystem of plugins and templates to expand its capabilities, and a huge network of developers and designers who are familiar with it.
But if you want to view the market as "getting everyone on the open web who needs a presence", it's hard to see how Wordpress the product is meeting that need. ~1/3 of US businesses have no owned/managed Internet presence at all (and the number is even lower outside of the US). Of the ones who do, something like 15% of them (iirc) are only on Facebook and/or Instagram, and that number is growing.
Let's take that small business owner who doesn't yet have an online presence and give them a default Wordpress install, and then let's give them a Facebook business page creator - which one do you think they'll be more successful at completing? Or if I need a simple blog/newsletter - let's try Wordpress vs. Substack or Wordpress vs. Medium - which is going to be easier?
If you say that's not the target market for Wordpress, that's fine, but every interview with Matt Mullenwig gives me the impression HE thinks that's the target market for Wordpress/Automattic - everyone who needs an online presence. By limiting Wordpress to only technical users and/or websites that are built by pros, it's basically ceding swaths of the user population to these purely commercial platforms that are open to varying degrees.
- dazc 5y agoFair argument although wasn't this the idea behind the .org/.com which was a kind of a best of both worlds solution that seemed to work OK up until now?