To be genuinely honest, you have to concede that’s like saying cars without engines are inherently safer. Static websites are a great choice – as long as you don’t need the features only a dynamic site can provide.
Having said that, I don’t know what a dynamic web page designer looks like. Surely all html creators (the software, rather than the person) create static html? Doesn’t making html for a dynamic site simply involve including additional static code?
My point was. Elements target market isn’t CMS based builders. They are not comparable.
I know how to make sites that rank high. All of my sites rank on first page on google on all the key words that matters 
Look at for example Breakdance for WP.
They have 130+ elements included and there are lots of developers selling additional elements and themes. This is were elements is heading.
I don’t want a Wordpress builder or an online builder so I guess I’m the target market 
The issue with that analogy is back then (my understanding, not from memory) is PageMaker introduced new abilities to a nascent industry (desktop publishing) running on fresh technology (laser printers). QuarkXpress followed later, along with other competitors. Plus PageMaker only became successful when purchased by a large company.
That’s a different world than today’s web. And even if they were comparable, what would be the revolutionary new ability that Elements is introducing, at a much lower cost?
That’s exactly the issue I’m struggling with right now and why I’m learning Wordpress. I want to use Elements for Client work and maybe I worry to much, but if I ever have to hand a site over to another Webdesigner, what are the chances they use a Mac and Raidweaver Elements to build websites?
Most use Wordpress or another CMS, and let’s be realistic here, it’s easier to hand a WP site to another Webdesigner or Agency who will have no issues to give continuous support once they get the login details. That’s not going to work with Elements.
I appreciate the ongoing discussion regarding Elements’ target market, it’s been quite a rollercoaster!
As you might have noticed, we’re not a traditional business. We didn’t set out to build Elements for a “target audience”. Our approach with Elements has always been to create a tool that we, ourselves, want to use. We believe that by focusing on building a product that meets our own high standards and needs, we’ll naturally attract users who share similar goals and values.
Elements feels like it’s shaping up to be something really special. I’m looking forward to pushing forward and seeing where this journey takes us.
I’ve just been watching more tutorial videos.
To clarify earlier comments I’ve made, when I talk about “dynamic” sites, I don’t mean hosted CMS. I mean traditional custom server / client side processing.
I’ve very close to making a purchase, Funnily enough, while I’m enthused by certain features (such as custom components), the persuasive factors are less about the spec sheet.
There’s the situation of Realmac having done this before, but now starting from scratch. When writing (hobby) software myself, I’ve always found it beneficial to occasionally throw out what I’ve done and start fresh, having a clearer picture of what works.
And because of the “small” size of the Realmac team, not tied to legacy code, I’m seeing genuine attention to feedback and input from users. That’s not encountered with big companies.
So far, the only thing holding me back from purchasing (and I do wish Elements was on the App Store) is the pricing scheme. But I’ll look for another thread to post about that.
Sort of true. There were things that existed prior to PageMaker that you could do sophisticated layout with (my mom, for instance, programmed in TeX). However, with PageMaker and the LaserWriter almost coincident, one opened up the other. To a large degree, that’s what’s happening now with the Internet. Tailwind and Bootstrap are enablers, and Elements sits on that. CSS/HTML by itself is programming beyond what most people would want to do by themselves.
But really what I was alluding to is the “design” aspect of Elements. Assuming it builds out the way I think it will, using it is a design process, not a programming process. That’s 100% what PageMaker did when it came out, it shifted everyone from having to have a deeper understanding of typesetting, to concentrating on design.
The missing part of Elements right now is the content side. Design without strong content abilities isn’t good. Right now I can design in Elements, but the content facilities are weak. (For those arguing for WordPress, the opposite is true: at the base level without buying other pre-designed things, the content facilities are strong, but design is very weak.)
I agree that PageMaker significantly lowered the bar for print design, enabling many more to be creative. What I am still unclear on is how Elements does that.
Last night I played around with Frappe Builder and Sitely (nee Sparkle). Frappe seemed too hard to set up for the average user (unless doing it online). While admittedly not being familiar with Sitely, I don’t get the sense of it being as good as Elements (it’s hard to compare apples with a video of oranges, though). However it is significantly cheaper.
I’m trying hard to find a reason to buy Elements but each time I look at the pricing, I go back to checking out alternative products.
I’m trying to figure out what Elements does that isn’t already available, at lower cost. In other words, what’s the “killer feature” which will define a target market broad enough for commercial success?
If there isn’t one, it’s another Apple Newton.