>> Maybe "integration" is better than "customization"?
> I think integration is a bit more of a loaded word.  I can imagine many
> potential customers saying 'but I don't need any integration!'.  I really
> like the graph, but yes I think we need a way to better show proportions and
> what you are getting.  I think most of us here would agree that with OSS the
> total cost would be lower, so I'm wondering if we might want to not have 50K
> for both.  The problem then is what *do* we say for both... as we are just
> showing example indicative costs of some theoretical project....

Yeah, both "integration" and "customization" are loaded words. The
bottom line is that if you only have $100k to spend on a CMS, a
commercial CMS will consume $30-50k in license fees, which means less
money available to do more interesting things like training, support
and enhancements.

I know one large non-profit that chose a commercial intranet solution
over Plone because the commercial vendor included everything in the
pricing, and the product appeared to do more "out-of-the-box" whereas
Plone appeared to require a lot of customization to get it to do what
the commercial product was offering. We need better marketing
materials to show what Plone is capable of providing out-of-the-box,
and how it can be easily extended with 3rd party add-on components.
Otherwise, we're going to continue to get reamed by these vendors
hawking proprietary CMSes.

I've added the Powerpoint and Keynote versions of the two World Plone
Day presentations to this page:

You have to click on the "View attachments" link at the bottom to see
the file attachments.


http://nateaune.com (personal blog)
http://jazkarta.com (open source technology solutions)
http://twitter.com/natea (daily updates)

PondCMS: Fully managed Plone-based CMS solution

Evangelism mailing list

Reply via email to