Weebly CEO David Rusenko: It’s Time to Take Us Seriously

For young founders (they were still in college) they seemed unusually formidable.

I'd be interested too, if we assume 1 user = 1 website, that means they have 20% of the websites that webs inc has (http://www.webs.com/company.htm) which translates as webs inc running 10% (!!) of the internet's websites, which is an incredible figure too.

I spoke with David a few months ago. He said that the percentage was based on the number of active websites, which according to http://www.whois.sc/internet-statistics/ is 139,902,673.

I don't know for sure if Weebly uses this number to calculate the percentage. But probably not, since it only indicates ~2.8 million Weebly websites, and they claim 11 million (7.8% of that active domain number).

Add a way to cook bacon, and I would buy one of these.

Personally I prefer to do my dishes in the shower to save water and soap.

I tried scrambled eggs but the egg packet drop rate was worse than wi-fi.

That's too far toward useful. Over a campfire, maybe.

Well, you're already rich on paper. An IPO just gives you an easier path to turn that value on paper into money.

Selling a portion of your company to get well off well retaining a large stake. Also good to have employees able to cash out more easily.

No. You don't get any richer by a trade at market price. The goal is usually diversification.

Silly names become brands, wherein the name becomes irrelevant IMHO. I've always thought so thinking about 'Tool' as a band, and how the word itself, is silly. But you wouldn't notice it (symbolism etc. aside)

As a developer, I like it because it's more extensible and well structured than WordPress, and focuses more on plugins (they don't have to be a bad thing!) rather than baking all of the functionality into a theme.

As a user, I like it because it's smokin' easy to use!

I'm a wordpress developer and am currently finishing a C5 site. At first it looked awesome, then as I got into the template development I was less impressed. It's just not as polished as wordpress. I totally agree that wordpress is bloated, but C5 expects a lot more understanding of PHP and C5, which can be hard at times, because there documentation isn't very up to date.

It may have just been me but I came across a couple of problems that should have been trivial to fix, or at least document, and that I had to search through forum posts for the answer. For one I actually had to post in the forum (ie the location of the dashboard URL, I couldn't see it in any of their docs).

I recommend trying it out for now, but I personally wouldn't build a business around it (as a developer - it's pretty good for content admins and users).

@david_nash I would completely disagree. C5 template development is one of the easiest i've ever seen. Just a few snippets of php embedded in html. In terms of your problem with the dashboard url, theres a login link at the bottom of most themes and when logged in theres a big honking button that says dashboard. not too complicated. At first I thought c5 would only be good for simple brochure style sites, but when I got into the internals I found that its a ton easier to build massive sites with than many other cms/blogs like wordpress ( a lot less confusing for the customer too).

I very much agree with 12345j, creating templates is really clean and easy with concrete5. A basic concrete5 theme has 4 lines of php: one to include header scripts, one to include footer scripts, one to create an editable area (like a widget area) and one to display it. To add further editable areas, you add the same two lines.

With Wordpress, theming is very well documented, but there are a bunch of different files for the posts/categories/comments/etc. I know wordpress themes can be very simple too, but I'm convinced that to a newcomer it's more complicated than concrete5.

Areas in concrete are way more flexible (and easier to understand) than Widget areas. When I first started using Wordpress I couldn't believe I couldn't easily set up different sidebar areas for different pages - it took extra plugins and config.

There are so many things in concrete5 that I've found that solve typical development 'problems' that other systems don't handle well. In particular, the Composer, custom block types, page attributes and block template overrides. All these things come into play when you have a client that wants to adjust something or have an easy way to add content. They're things you might not see straight away with the system, but when you find them, you're really glad they are there.

If you are a programmer, it's an incredibly powerful and well designed system. You don't have to learn at all at once too, you can learn how to create 'block' templates to tweak up some output, move on to overriding block functionality and then on to creating your own blocks.

So I'm very happy using concrete5 - it's easy for clients, easy to theme and highly customisable.

WordPress seems to be geared for the blogger, so if all you want is a blog....

Concrete5 is for WEBSITES. yes it can do blogs, but it can also do eCommerce, Brochure sites; you name it.

I think it suites single-users and SMEs rather than big corporates (who have teams/departments for this sort of thing anyway). There doesn't seem to be much support for multiple-sites for example..

Installation and setup is incredibly straight forward, templates are mindlessly simple, there's also a vast library of free and commercial extensions and add-on for most things I can think of.

My only complaint (as a developer) is that now I have to think more about STYLE (look and feel) and CONTENT that resolve technical issues, as an author isn't this exactly how its supposed to be?

I recommend it as its elegant, simple (not in a bad way) and works.

Given the ease of setup (and your obvious technical knowledge), you could have it running on your PC in an hour (get WAMP, then install C5 on top). so don't believe any of the comments here - try it for yourself :-)

Perhaps, but that doesn’t make it the right choice.

These are excellent points. A few of them I would have a small bit of disagreement over the perceived negativity, but they are too small to bother with. I would say it's more like there is not enough benefit to outweigh the perceived, possible, and/or actual negatives. But that seems a silly statement to make in of itself.

I think it revolves what your website actually is and how deeply invested you are in your URLs.