Why Website Builders are in the Browser

I'm posting this because I'm currently building an 'AI App Builder' to let people build AI Apps super easily. I relate the framework I'm using to be the AI equivelant of wordpress, so naturally when deciding whether or not to have this service be a website or a local desktop app (a big descision), I had to do some research on the past. This was what I found and I thought it was so helpful that I might as well share it too.

Made by OpenAI DeepSearch

Query: Before WordPress, Shopify, and other popular no-code website builders emerged, were there any desktop applications that allowed users to build websites locally and then deploy them online? If so, please provide some examples of these apps, explain why they didn't achieve similar levels of success or popularity compared to modern web-based platforms, and outline the reasons they weren't as effective from both a technical and business perspective.

Answer: In the early days of the web, building a website often meant using a desktop application to craft pages on your local computer, then uploading those files to a server via FTP. This was long before modern “no-code” cloud platforms like WordPress, Shopify, Wix, or Squarespace became dominant. During the late 1990s and early 2000s, a variety of desktop software tools – notably Macromedia Dreamweaver, Microsoft FrontPage, and others – enabled users to design websites visually (using WYSIWYG editors) or with code assistance. These applications were the precursors to today’s web builders, allowing individuals and organizations to create websites locally and then deploy them manually. This report provides an overview of those pre-cloud web development tools, how they worked, their target audiences and features, and how their business performance and adoption compare to the modern cloud-based platforms that eventually eclipsed them. We will also analyze why these desktop-based tools waned in commercial success over time, considering usability, accessibility, scalability, connectivity, and evolving web standards. A summary table of key examples and trends is included at the end for quick reference.

Early Desktop Website Building Tools (Before Cloud Platforms)

In the mid-1990s, as the World Wide Web began to gain mainstream attention, software companies introduced desktop applications to make web creation easier. Hand-coding HTML in basic text editors was common among early webmasters, but this required technical skill. The new desktop tools offered a more user-friendly approach: What-You-See-Is-What-You-Get (WYSIWYG) editing, where users could design pages much like in a word processor or desktop publishing program, with the software generating the HTML code behind the scenes. Users would build the site on their PC or Mac and then manually upload the HTML files (and images, etc.) to a web server via FTP or similar protocols when ready to publish (Adobe Dreamweaver - Wikipedia). This workflow stood in contrast to today’s cloud-based builders, where the design and publishing happen online in one place.

A number of desktop web editors emerged, each with different strengths. Some were geared toward professional web developers who wanted fine control over code (often providing a split view of code and design), while others targeted non-technical users, hiding the code entirely. By the late 90s, a handful of applications had become especially prominent:

• Macromedia Dreamweaver – a powerful, professional-grade web design tool (later acquired by Adobe).
• Microsoft FrontPage – part of Microsoft’s Office family, aimed at beginners and business users.
• Adobe GoLive – Adobe’s own web editor (acquired from GoLive CyberStudio), popular with graphic designers.
• NetObjects Fusion – a template-driven, drag-and-drop site builder requiring no HTML knowledge.
• Plus many others (like HotDog, CoffeeCup, and open-source editors such as Mozilla Composer) which catered to various niches of the growing webmaster community.

Each of these allowed local website creation with more or less “no-code” approach and then deployment via network protocols (usually FTP, and later WebDAV or others). Below, we delve into several of the notable examples, how they worked and who used them, before comparing their impact to modern platforms.

Macromedia/Adobe Dreamweaver

(Website design software | Adobe Dreamweaver) Figure: Adobe Dreamweaver’s interface, which combines a visual page layout view with a code editor and site management panels. This dual environment helped web designers tweak HTML/CSS code while seeing a live preview.

Dreamweaver is one of the most iconic desktop web development applications. It was first released in 1997 by Macromedia, quickly setting a standard for professional web design tools (Adobe Dreamweaver - Wikipedia). (Adobe acquired Macromedia in 2005 and continued Dreamweaver’s development under the Adobe brand.) Dreamweaver distinguished itself with a hybrid approach: it offered a WYSIWYG Design View for visual layout and a Code View for hand-coding, with a “split” view to use both simultaneously. This concept of “roundtrip HTML” was a key feature – the software strove to preserve developer-written code edits even as users switched back to the visual editor (Macromedia - Wikipedia). This appealed to professionals who wanted the convenience of a visual editor and the cleanliness of hand-coded HTML.

Features: Dreamweaver’s feature set was extensive, reflecting its target audience of professional front-end developers and designers. It included a robust code editor with syntax highlighting and auto-completion for HTML, CSS, and JavaScript, and even server languages like ASP and PHP in later versions (Adobe Dreamweaver - Wikipedia) (Adobe Dreamweaver - Wikipedia). It had a built-in file manager/site manager to organize project files and sync them to a web server (integrated FTP/SFTP upload) (Adobe Dreamweaver - Wikipedia). In Design View, users could drag and position elements, insert images, tables, forms, and so on, with the program generating the HTML/CSS. Dreamweaver introduced reusable templates and library components to maintain consistent layout across pages. It also provided a library of pre-built JavaScript widgets (called “behaviors”) for common tasks like rollovers or form validation. Over time, it added support for new web standards (after Adobe’s acquisition, Dreamweaver releases became more compliant with W3C standards and modern CSS/JS practices (Adobe Dreamweaver - Wikipedia)). The tool even incorporated preview features – for example, the ability to see how a page would render in different browsers, and a Live View that used an embedded browser engine for real-time preview.

Target Audience: Dreamweaver primarily targeted professional web designers and developers, including freelancers and web design agencies. Its users typically had some knowledge of HTML/CSS – which they could use in Code View – but benefited from the efficiency tools Dreamweaver provided. It was also used in education to teach web development, given its balanced approach. By addressing the needs of those who cared about code quality and modern features, Dreamweaver became “the world's most complete tool for web designers and front-end developers,” as Adobe later described it (History of Adobe - Animation & Graphic Design | Seattle Marketers). Notably, Dreamweaver was cross-platform (available on both Windows and Mac), expanding its reach to creative communities on the Mac as well as the broader PC market (Adobe Dreamweaver - Wikipedia).

Adoption and Business Performance: Dreamweaver saw rapid adoption among professionals. By the late 1990s it had surged ahead of rivals – by October 1999, an industry survey found nearly 66% of professional web developers were using Dreamweaver (Macromedia - Wikipedia). This was a remarkable market share, reflecting how dominant it became in the pro segment (many of the remainder were likely still hand-coding or using niche tools, as well as Microsoft’s tool, discussed next). Macromedia’s success with Dreamweaver (alongside Flash and other products) made it a key player in web technology. Dreamweaver was a commercial product (around $300 for a license in the late 90s (Macromedia Dreamweaver 1.2 in 1998 - Web Design Museum)), and it contributed significantly to Macromedia’s revenues until the Adobe acquisition. Adobe continued to bundle Dreamweaver in its Creative Suite/Creative Cloud subscriptions, suggesting it remained a valuable product, though not on the scale of Photoshop or Illustrator.

When compared to modern platforms, however, Dreamweaver’s user base was relatively small. Today, as a tool for building and maintaining websites, its presence on the web is minimal – only about 0.3% of all websites are even identifiable as having been made with Dreamweaver (WordPress vs Dreamweaver (2025) — Which is Better?). This tiny fraction (versus WordPress’s 40%+ share) shows how the landscape shifted. Dreamweaver still exists as part of Adobe Creative Cloud, but its role is now more niche (often used by old-guard developers or for specific workflows like crafting HTML emails or banner code). The reasons for this decline will be analyzed later, but in essence, the rise of more accessible web creation methods has overshadowed tools like Dreamweaver in the long run.

Microsoft FrontPage

Another major player of the era was Microsoft FrontPage, which took a different approach and aimed at a different audience than Dreamweaver. FrontPage was originally developed by Vermeer Technologies and released in 1995, then acquired by Microsoft in 1996 (Microsoft FrontPage - Wikipedia). Microsoft integrated FrontPage into its Office product line by 1997, branding it as Microsoft Office FrontPage (Microsoft FrontPage - Wikipedia). The inclusion in the Office family signaled that FrontPage was meant to be a consumer- and business-friendly tool, complementing Microsoft Word, Excel, etc., for creating web content.

How it Worked: FrontPage was a WYSIWYG HTML editor designed so that a user with little or no knowledge of HTML could still create web pages. It deliberately hid the HTML code by default – allowing “novices to create web pages and websites easily” without seeing the markup (Microsoft FrontPage - Wikipedia). The interface was similar to other Microsoft Office applications (familiar menus, toolbars, and dialogs), which lowered the learning curve for users already comfortable with Word or PowerPoint. FrontPage separated the tasks of site management and page editing in its early versions (there was a FrontPage Explorer for managing the site structure and a FrontPage Editor for page content in FrontPage 98 and earlier) (Microsoft FrontPage - Wikipedia), later merging them into one program by FrontPage 2000.

One distinctive aspect of FrontPage was its use of proprietary server-side extensions. Many FrontPage features – such as hit counters, form handling, guestbooks, or search boxes – relied on FrontPage Server Extensions (FPSE) installed on the web server (Microsoft FrontPage - Wikipedia). These were essentially scripts and libraries that processed FrontPage’s web components. For example, if you inserted a feedback form in FrontPage, the server hosting the site needed FPSE to handle the form submission. Microsoft provided FPSE for Windows servers (IIS) and even Unix servers for a time (Microsoft FrontPage - Wikipedia). While this enabled easy addition of interactive features without coding, it tied FrontPage-built sites to specific server configurations and introduced compatibility issues (sites would work best on Microsoft’s IIS web server). Later versions of FrontPage began moving away from this reliance – FrontPage 2003 added support for standard protocols like FTP and WebDAV for publishing (Microsoft FrontPage - Wikipedia) and could work in code view more like a normal editor.

Features: By its final version (FrontPage 2003), the application had evolved significantly. It introduced a Split View (showing code and design together) so users could fine-tune HTML if needed (Microsoft FrontPage - Wikipedia). It provided Dynamic Web Templates, which let users define a template and apply it to multiple pages for consistency (Microsoft FrontPage - Wikipedia) (bringing a bit of CMS-like templating to static pages). It had an “Accessibility Checker” and HTML optimizer to encourage web standards compliance (a nod to the changing times where standards like CSS-based layout were taking over from older approaches) (Microsoft FrontPage - Wikipedia). FrontPage also added IntelliSense in code view – an auto-completion aid for HTML/CSS tags (Microsoft FrontPage - Wikipedia), similar to what developers might find in an IDE. There were conveniences like Interactive Buttons (a quick way to generate web graphics for navigation bars without needing a separate image editor) (Microsoft FrontPage - Wikipedia). Despite these additions, FrontPage’s core appeal remained its easy, familiar WYSIWYG editing for someone who didn’t want to dive into code at all.

Target Audience: FrontPage’s target users were non-professional web creators – small business owners, office staff tasked with maintaining a company web page, teachers or students making a school site, and hobbyists. Essentially, it targeted the same broad user base who used Microsoft Office. Microsoft’s strategy was to leverage their dominance in office productivity software to bring those users onto the web. For instance, FrontPage integrated with Office tools (you could import Word or Excel content, and FrontPage used the Office clipboard, etc.). As a result, many early websites for local businesses, personal homepages, or intranet sites in organizations were built with FrontPage by people who were not web developers by trade.

Adoption and Business Performance: Thanks to Microsoft’s backing and distribution, FrontPage saw widespread usage in the late 90s and early 2000s, especially among beginners. It was sometimes bundled in certain editions of Microsoft Office or sold as a standalone product. Its exact market share is harder to quantify, but it was considered the chief competitor to Dreamweaver in that era – Dreamweaver dominated among pros, while “FrontPage remained a strong competitor among amateur and business users” (Macromedia - Wikipedia). In practical terms, if you viewed the HTML source of random websites circa 1998-2002, you would often find telltale signs of FrontPage (such as comments or tags like <!--webbot--> or directories named _vti_cnf, which were part of the FPSE mechanism (Microsoft FrontPage - Wikipedia)).

However, FrontPage also earned a poor reputation among professional web developers. One reason was that it tended to generate “terrible code” – bloated, non-standard HTML that was hard to maintain manually (html - Why shouldn't professional web developers use Microsoft FrontPage? - Stack Overflow). For example, FrontPage might absolutely position elements or use excessive nested tables and inline styles to achieve a layout, making the HTML source messy. Developers who inherited a FrontPage-built site often complained that it was easier to rebuild from scratch than to fix the code. Additionally, reliance on FrontPage Server Extensions meant vendor lock-in and potential security issues (over time, hosts started phasing out FPSE due to security concerns and incompatibility with newer server tech (The death of FrontPage Extensions - InMotion Hosting) (Do you still support Microsoft FrontPage? - Knowledgebase)).

Microsoft eventually decided to reposition its web tools. In 2006, Microsoft discontinued FrontPage and replaced it with two different products: SharePoint Designer (for business users building SharePoint portals) and Expression Web (for general web design, targeting more professional developers) (Microsoft FrontPage - Wikipedia). Expression Web was essentially the successor that dropped the old FrontPage legacies and focused on standards, CSS, and a more code-centric workflow (NetObjects Fusion Still Fills a Vital Web Design Role). Notably, Microsoft made Expression Web free in its later releases and then discontinued it entirely in 2012 (Microsoft Expression Web - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia), signaling the end of Microsoft’s involvement in WYSIWYG web editor software. By that point, the momentum had shifted to other platforms (and Microsoft likely saw more value in supporting developers through Visual Studio and embracing open standards). FrontPage’s business performance in its prime was decent – it was packaged in a hugely popular Office suite – but in the long run it did not create a lasting independent ecosystem or large revenue stream for Microsoft. Compared to modern platforms like WordPress (which powers a significant portion of the entire internet) or Shopify (a multi-billion dollar company), FrontPage’s impact was modest and largely confined to the era when the web was young.

Other Notable Desktop Web Editors

Beyond the big two (Dreamweaver and FrontPage), there were several other desktop applications that played significant roles in the pre-cloud website development landscape. Each had its own approach and target user group:

• NetObjects Fusion: Debuting in 1996, NetObjects Fusion was a pioneer of the template-driven, no-coding-required paradigm. It presented website building in a completely visual, drag-and-drop manner. Fusion’s approach was akin to desktop publishing for the web – users designed pages by placing text boxes, images, and other elements in a free-form layout. The software stored the site’s content and structure in a proprietary database, from which it would generate HTML code when publishing (NetObjects Fusion - Wikipedia). Early versions didn’t even let users edit HTML directly within the program; manual code changes had to be done via external editors and could not be re-imported, underscoring Fusion’s focus on abstraction from code (NetObjects Fusion - Wikipedia). The target audience was print designers, writers, and other content creators who had little HTML knowledge (NetObjects Fusion - Wikipedia). NetObjects Fusion was lauded for enabling such users – one reviewer noted it “let them do what they do best… and automatically generated finished, sophisticated web pages”, with professionals like photojournalists able to create web content without learning HTML (NetObjects Fusion - Wikipedia) (NetObjects Fusion - Wikipedia). In terms of features, Fusion had a unique SiteStructure Editor to plan the site’s hierarchy and a Page Design Editor with pixel-level layout control (NetObjects Fusion - Wikipedia). It also offered pre-designed site styles and components. Fusion initially saw great success – it won awards and reportedly captured a large chunk of the market (nearly two-thirds of the web design software market in Germany by the late 90s) (NetObjects Fusion - Wikipedia). However, as web design grew more complex, Fusion struggled to keep up with competitors like Dreamweaver. Its lack of direct HTML control was a barrier for programmers (NetObjects Fusion - Wikipedia), and as professionals gravitated to other tools, Fusion “fell back in market share and reputation” (NetObjects Fusion - Wikipedia). The company was acquired by Web.com in 2001, and Fusion continued in maintenance mode for years with a devoted but niche user base. By 2007–2008 its annual revenue was only around $2–3 million (NetObjects Fusion - Wikipedia), a fraction of what larger platforms or companies were making. The last major release (NetObjects Fusion 2015) essentially marked the end of its development. NetObjects Fusion’s story highlights an early “no-code” tool that peaked early and then faded as the market shifted.

• Adobe GoLive: GoLive was originally a product called GoLive CyberStudio, created by a German company (GoLive Systems). Adobe acquired it in late 1999, aiming to have its own web editor to compete with Macromedia. GoLive was particularly popular among graphic designers and Mac users, as it integrated well with Adobe’s graphics software. For instance, GoLive could import Photoshop designs, and it used an interface vocabulary familiar to those who used Adobe InDesign or PageMaker. Features included a strong CSS editor, a layout grid for designing with absolute positioning (useful in the early 2000s when CSS layout was still evolving), and site management tools. Adobe GoLive reached its height in the early 2000s, but once Adobe acquired Macromedia in 2005 (thus acquiring Dreamweaver), a decision was made to consolidate. Dreamweaver, with its larger user base, became Adobe’s flagship web tool, and GoLive was discontinued by 2008. This was a clear example of market consolidation – two tools serving similar purposes, with one eventually winning out. GoLive’s legacy is mostly that it served the Adobe-loyal designers until Dreamweaver took over, and it showed how traditional print design companies (like Adobe) tried to adapt to the web era.

• Microsoft Expression Web: Although chronologically a bit later (mid-2000s), it’s worth noting as the spiritual successor to FrontPage. Released in 2006, Expression Web dropped FrontPage’s old engines and was built to support modern web standards (HTML5, CSS3, etc.) (Microsoft Expression Web - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). Microsoft aimed this at more professional web developers who might be put off by FrontPage’s reputation. In terms of features, it was closer to Dreamweaver – offering CSS design tools, validation, and integration with Microsoft’s development stack for dynamic pages (ASP.NET support, for example). However, Expression Web never gained significant traction; many in the target audience were already using Dreamweaver or open-source editors. Microsoft made Expression Web free in 2012 and then discontinued it (Microsoft Expression Web - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia), effectively exiting the WYSIWYG editor market. This move acknowledged that standalone web design software was no longer a growth area, especially as the focus shifted to web application development (which Microsoft serves with Visual Studio) and as simpler site-building moved to online services.

• Other Tools and Editors: The landscape of the late 90s had a plethora of smaller or more specialized web editors:

  • Allaire HomeSite: A popular text-based HTML editor (initially released in 1996) beloved by hand-coders. It lacked a WYSIWYG view, focusing instead on efficient code editing with features like tag completion and validation. Macromedia acquired HomeSite in 2001 and actually bundled it with Dreamweaver for a while (Dreamweaver’s code engine was influenced by HomeSite’s technology). This showed the demand for code-centric tools even as WYSIWYG thrived.
  • Sausage Software HotDog: An Australian-made HTML editor (mid-90s) which gained fame as a shareware tool for hobbyist webmasters. It provided an editor with preview capabilities and lots of wizards for things like creating tables or forms. HotDog was quite widely used in the mid-90s by enthusiasts but faded as the company behind it faced competition and the market evolved.
  • CoffeeCup HTML Editor: Another shareware/webmaster tool (from 1996 onward) that combined a code editor with some WYSIWYG assistance. It targeted beginners and had an upbeat branding. CoffeeCup Software actually survived and later shifted to other web design products and HTML5 tools.
  • Netscape Composer: This was a free WYSIWYG editor included with Netscape Communicator (the suite version of the Netscape browser) around 1997-1999. Because it was free and came with a popular browser, many casual users tried out Netscape Composer to make personal home pages. It was fairly basic (you could format text, add images, and links, but complex layouts were hard to do). Netscape Composer’s lineage continued in the Mozilla Suite and now SeaMonkey. It never had the advanced features of commercial editors, but it’s notable as an early no-cost option in an era when most advanced tools were expensive.
  • Apple iWeb: Released much later (2006) as part of the iLife suite, iWeb was Apple’s attempt at a user-friendly web page creator for Mac users. It allowed drag-and-drop design with stylish templates and was particularly geared towards publishing on Apple’s MobileMe (iCloud’s predecessor). iWeb’s target audience was consumers wanting to create family websites, blogs, or small project sites. While easy to use, it was not very flexible beyond Apple’s templates, and when Apple moved away from the MobileMe hosting service in 2011–2012, iWeb was discontinued (iWeb - Wikipedia). This highlights a shift: even consumer-focused companies like Apple saw that maintaining a standalone web design app was less viable as the web evolved.
  • Open Source editors (NVU/KompoZer): NVU was an open-source WYSIWYG editor released in 2005 (based on Mozilla Composer’s engine, funded by Linspire). It aimed to be a free alternative to FrontPage/Dreamweaver for Linux and other platforms. KompoZer was a community fork that continued NVU. These had moderate usage among hobbyists and in education (where budgets for software were low), but their development stalled by the late 2000s. They serve as an early attempt to bring web editing into the open-source realm – an effort that arguably got supplanted by web-based open-source platforms like WordPress.

Each of these tools contributed to the web’s early growth by lowering the bar to entry for making websites. Some specialized in visual design, others in coding, some in specific niches (e.g., image-heavy sites, or integration with other software). Common to all of them was the assumption that websites would be built on a local computer and then published – the internet was the medium to serve the content, but not yet the place where average users created the content. That distinction is what the next generation of platforms would blur.

Features and Workflow of Desktop Site Builders

Despite their differences, most desktop web design applications shared a similar basic workflow and feature set. Understanding how these tools worked will clarify why users eventually gravitated to newer solutions.

• Offline Design & Local Files: With desktop site builders, the entire website (HTML files, images, stylesheets, etc.) was stored and edited on your local machine. For example, Dreamweaver and FrontPage both managed a “site” consisting of a folder of files on your disk. You would typically start a new site/project, add pages to it, edit those pages, and see the results instantly in the WYSIWYG view or by previewing in a browser locally. This offline approach meant you didn’t need an internet connection to design the site – an important point in the dial-up era. Only once you were satisfied would you upload the files to a live web server.

• WYSIWYG Page Editing: A core feature was a visual page editor that aimed to replicate the appearance of the page as it would look in a web browser. These editors had toolbars for formatting text (bold, italic, fonts, colors), inserting images, creating tables, and so forth, much like a word processor. Users could drag elements around (though early HTML constraints meant truly free-form layout was often achieved by putting content in HTML tables or frames). Tools like NetObjects Fusion took a print-layout approach with pixel-perfect placement (NetObjects Fusion - Wikipedia), whereas others like Dreamweaver and FrontPage allowed layout but within the flow of HTML elements (Dreamweaver later added absolutely-positioned element support too). The idea was to avoid writing HTML tags manually – the software would generate the necessary <p>, <img>, <table>, <div> tags behind the scenes. This was the “no-code” promise of those days, albeit operating on static content.

• Split/Code View: Most professional-grade editors eventually provided a Code View or HTML source mode for users who wanted or needed to fine-tune the markup. As mentioned, Dreamweaver pioneered preserving manual code edits during visual editing (Macromedia - Wikipedia). FrontPage added a split code/design view by its 2003 version (Microsoft FrontPage - Wikipedia). This was important because no matter how good the WYSIWYG, sometimes the generated code needed tweaking (perhaps to fix layout issues or to integrate a third-party script). Having both modes made these tools flexible – beginners could stay in design mode, advanced users could mix in code when required.

• Site Management and Assets: Unlike a simple text editor, these applications usually had a site/project panel showing all pages and assets (images, media) in the website. This helped keep the site organized and allowed features like link management – if you renamed or moved a page, the software could update all hyperlinks pointing to it throughout the site. They also often included an FTP client or publishing tool. For example, in Dreamweaver you could enter your FTP credentials and upload the entire site or sync changes with one click, straight from the software (Adobe Dreamweaver - Wikipedia). FrontPage, when used with its server extensions, let you “publish” the site to a server which had FPSE, or it could use FTP in later versions. This integration saved users from having to use a separate FTP application to transfer files.

• Templates/Themes and Reusable Elements: To aid consistency, many tools provided some form of templating. FrontPage 2003’s Dynamic Web Templates (Microsoft FrontPage - Wikipedia)allowed defining a master layout that multiple pages could inherit. Dreamweaver had “Dreamweaver Templates” (.dwt files) which worked similarly, as well as Library items (snippets of HTML that could be reused). NetObjects Fusion, with its site-oriented approach, inherently encouraged consistent styles across pages. Additionally, FrontPage and others shipped with themes: pre-designed style schemes with coordinated colors, buttons, and fonts that you could apply so that novice users didn’t have to design from scratch. These features were early solutions to the challenge of maintaining a uniform look across a multi-page website, something that later would be handled by CSS in a more standardized way.

• Built-in Components and Widgets: To extend functionality, desktop editors offered ready-made components. FrontPage’s were tied to its server extensions – e.g., a feedback form, a hit counter, or a discussion forum. If the server supported FPSE, a user could drag in a form, and the submission results could be emailed or saved without writing code. Dreamweaver had JavaScript “behaviors” – small scripts for common interactive effects (like image rollovers or opening new windows) that users could apply via a GUI dialog. NetObjects Fusion introduced an e-commerce catalog builder in version 7.5 (2003) to help users create online store pages without coding (NetObjects Fusion Still Fills a Vital Web Design Role). These conveniences were precursors to today’s plugins or modules, though they were far more limited and often proprietary.

• Preview and Compatibility Tools: Acknowledging that WYSIWYG representation might not be perfect, editors encouraged testing in real browsers. Usually, you could hit a “Preview in Browser” button which would launch your default web browser to show the current page. Some software had multiple browser preview options (since Internet Explorer and Netscape could render pages quite differently in the 90s, this was important). As standards evolved, tools added validation (e.g., checking if your HTML conformed to W3C standards or if your CSS had errors). By the 2000s, issues like ensuring your site worked in Firefox, IE, etc., became a consideration – Dreamweaver and others provided workarounds or warnings for known browser issues.

• No Built-in Hosting: It’s important to note that these desktop tools did not provide hosting or live deployment on their own (with rare exceptions, like Microsoft’s bundled “Personal Web Server” for testing FrontPage locally, or Adobe’s later attempt to tie iWeb to MobileMe hosting). The user was responsible for choosing a web host, and deploying the site there. The software would help get the files there, but the infrastructure (domain name, server maintenance, etc.) was separate. This differs from modern cloud builders, where signing up for the service often includes hosting on that service’s platform.

In summary, desktop web builders offered a self-contained web development environment: all the editing capabilities on your machine, with guidance to produce a functioning website, but leaving the operational aspects (like running the site for visitors) to the user’s choice of server. They greatly simplified the creation process relative to hand-coding, but they still required a certain level of knowledge (how to configure FTP, understanding when to use which component, basic design principles to make a site look decent, etc.). They also were constrained by the technology of the time – databases and server-side programming were not integrated into these tools (aside from supporting writing such code manually). If you needed a truly dynamic site (user logins, data-driven content), you would either hand-code that or integrate with separate systems – a gap that foreshadowed the rise of content management systems like WordPress.

Adoption and Market Impact of Desktop Tools

During their prime years (roughly mid-90s through mid-2000s), desktop web editors were the de facto way a huge number of websites were built. Each tool found its audience, and collectively they enabled the first big wave of web expansion by empowering people to build sites without extensive programming.

Market Adoption in the Early Web:

• Professional Use: Tools like Dreamweaver became standard in professional web development. As noted, by 1999 Dreamweaver was reportedly used by about two-thirds of professional web developers (Macromedia - Wikipedia) – a dominant position. For a time, being a “Dreamweaver developer” was a common job description. Agencies would use it to rapidly prototype and build client websites. Its integration with other Macromedia products (Flash for animations, Fireworks for web graphics) made it central to a lot of web production workflows. Adobe GoLive, while eventually overshadowed, had a dedicated user base among high-end designers (especially those heavily into the Adobe ecosystem pre-2005).

• Amateur and Small Business Use: Microsoft FrontPage, due to its inclusion in Office and familiar interface, became the tool of choice for many small businesses putting up their first website. A local bakery, a real estate agent, or a school project team in 2001 might very well use FrontPage to make a simple site. Even if they didn’t personally build it, they might hire someone who did and then maintain it via FrontPage. Its presence in the Microsoft portfolio meant it was widely accessible – by some estimates, FrontPage had millions of copies distributed (for example, it was included in Office 2000 Professional edition, reaching many corporate desktops by default). While exact usage share is hard to pin down, FrontPage was certainly among the top-used web tools in its era (one could anecdotally gauge this from the prevalence of FrontPage’s markers on websites of that time).

• Global Reach and Other Markets: Some tools had specific strongholds. NetObjects Fusion, for instance, achieved nearly 66% market share in Germany in the late 90s (NetObjects Fusion - Wikipedia), even though globally it was less dominant. This suggests that in certain markets or communities, a particular tool could become the favorite (possibly due to local marketing, distribution deals, or the influence of early adopters). Generally, English-speaking markets leaned towards FrontPage or Dreamweaver; in some European and Asian markets, localized tools or localized versions (like a Japanese package called “IBM Homepage Builder” which was popular in Japan) played a role.

• Educational Use: Many schools and universities in the 2000s taught basic web design using these tools. For example, a typical “Intro to Web Design” course might use Dreamweaver or even FrontPage in a computer lab to teach students how to visually construct pages, then maybe introduce HTML coding. This seeded knowledge of these applications among a generation of users.

Business Performance: In terms of business, these software products were usually sold via a traditional license model. Macromedia’s web products (Dreamweaver, Flash, etc.) were significant contributors to a business that Adobe eventually bought for $3.4 billion in 2005 – indicating how valuable the domain was considered (Macromedia - Wikipedia) (Macromedia - Wikipedia). Microsoft’s FrontPage, as part of Office, was indirectly a part of one of the most successful software suites of all time, but Microsoft did not monetize FrontPage separately to the extent of building an ecosystem around it. NetObjects Fusion, as an independent product, gives a sense of scale for a second-tier tool: its revenues in the mid-2000s were around $2–4 million per year (NetObjects Fusion - Wikipedia), which was already on a decline. That’s a tiny number next to, say, Adobe’s Creative Suite revenue or, later on, what WordPress-related businesses or Shopify would generate. It underscores that while thousands or even tens of thousands of people might have been using these smaller tools, the paying customer base was limited.

Community and Ecosystem: It’s also telling to consider community adoption. Dreamweaver had (and still has) an ecosystem of extensions – third-party developers made add-ons to enhance it (e.g., menus for shopping carts, advanced CSS editors, etc.). There were user forums, tutorials, and books (the “Dreamweaver Bible” etc.). FrontPage likewise had community sites and MVPs offering tips (though to a lesser extent in the development community, which largely disdained it). However, none of these ecosystems rivaled what would come with open-source CMS platforms (where thousands of plugins and themes would be created by a massive community). The scale of user-generated contributions for desktop software was inherently smaller.

By the mid-2000s, a noticeable transition was underway. Many professional web developers started moving away from WYSIWYG editors, either towards hand-coding (as sites used more complex CSS/JavaScript and later AJAX, some felt code editors like Eclipse, or later Visual Studio Code, were more suitable), or towards emerging web frameworks (like Ruby on Rails or PHP frameworks) that were beyond the scope of tools like Dreamweaver. At the same time, casual users and small businesses began discovering hosted website services (GeoCities and Tripod in the late 90s were early hosted homepage services, and later Wix, Weebly, etc., would refine that model). This meant the “middle” segment that desktop web tools occupied started shrinking.

To put adoption in perspective: even at its peak, a tool like Dreamweaver might have had a few hundred thousand active users worldwide (given its 66% pro share at a time when the number of professional web designers might have been in the low hundreds of thousands). WordPress, by contrast, powers over 75 million websites (and by 2025, an estimated 43% of all websites use it) (WordPress vs Dreamweaver (2025) — Which is Better?), and has an active user base in the many millions. Similarly, FrontPage’s user base (perhaps a few million at most) pales next to modern site builders – e.g., Wix boasts over 200 million users today (Wix Statistics (How Many Websites Are Made With Wix?) - Colorlib). So the scale of adoption for web creation tools has exploded, but it shifted to different kinds of tools (mostly web-based and often free or subscription-based, rather than shrink-wrapped software).

In summary, the desktop tools were successful in the context of the early web, enabling the first tens of millions of websites and helping grow the web design profession. But their business successes were modest and mostly limited to software license sales. None became a “platform” in the sense of continuously hosting or servicing websites at a massive scale (the way WordPress.com or Shopify does now). That limitation in business model and reach set the stage for the next wave of web building solutions.

Rise of Web-Based Platforms (WordPress, Shopify, etc.)

Starting in the mid-2000s, the paradigm for building and maintaining websites began to shift from local applications to online platforms and content management systems (CMS). Two of the most influential names are WordPress (launched 2003) and Shopify (launched 2006), which represent broadly the CMS and hosted SaaS (Software-as-a-Service) models, respectively. Along with others like Joomla (2005), Drupal (2001), Wix (2006), Squarespace (2004), and more, these platforms steadily rose as the preferred way to create websites, especially for non-developers.

WordPress and the CMS Revolution: WordPress began as a simple blogging software but evolved into a full-fledged open-source CMS. Unlike desktop software, WordPress is web-based – you install it on a web server, and you manage your site through a web browser. This means from the get-go, you are working online. WordPress introduced a fundamental shift: instead of designing pages then later adding content, WordPress set up a system where content (posts, pages) is stored in a database and can be managed through an admin interface, and the design is handled by themes that can be swapped out. For users, especially after 2005, WordPress became an easy way to get a website up and running without needing any desktop software at all. With a few clicks on a hosting service, one could have a WordPress site and start adding content through a web form. Crucially, WordPress is free and open-source, lowering the cost barrier significantly compared to buying something like Dreamweaver. Over time, its ease of use and flexibility led to astonishing adoption: by 2025, WordPress powers more than 43% of all websites on the internet (WordPress vs Dreamweaver (2025) — Which is Better?). That is an adoption rate orders of magnitude larger than any single desktop editor ever achieved. It also accounts for about 61% of the market share among all CMS platforms (WordPress vs. Adobe Dreamweaver vs. Web Studio usage statistics, March 2025) (WordPress vs. Adobe Dreamweaver vs. Web Studio usage statistics, March 2025). WordPress’s success is not just in user numbers but also in establishing an ecosystem – tens of thousands of plugins and themes (many of them commercial) extend WordPress, creating a large economy around it. In terms of business performance, while WordPress itself is free, companies like Automattic (which runs WordPress.com hosting) have built a thriving business, and countless freelancers and agencies make a living off WordPress site development, customization, and maintenance. Essentially, WordPress proved that an online, community-driven platform could deliver what earlier tools did and more, in a way that could scale globally.

Shopify and Hosted Site Builders: Shopify took a different angle – focusing specifically on e-commerce. In the early 2000s, if you wanted to create an online store, you might use a desktop tool to design the site, then integrate a third-party shopping cart script or use something like OSCommerce. Shopify’s founders saw an opportunity to streamline that by providing a hosted platform where everything needed for selling online was built-in. Shopify is a cloud-based website builder with a specialization: it provides templates and a design interface for your storefront, but also handles inventory management, payment processing, security, and scalability on the backend. This combination was very powerful for entrepreneurs who were more concerned with running their business than with web development. By paying a monthly fee, they could get a professional online store without ever touching code or dealing with hosting configuration. Shopify’s growth reflects this appeal – as of 2024, it hosts 5.6 million active stores in 175+ countries (Shopify - Wikipedia), making it one of the largest e-commerce platforms in the world. The company’s revenue in 2024 was about $8.9 billion (Shopify - Wikipedia), showing how commercially successful this model became. This surpasses by far the revenues any desktop web software ever achieved. Shopify’s rise also signals how specialized functionality (like e-commerce) moved to dedicated platforms rather than being done via general tools.

Other No-Code Online Builders: Alongside WordPress and Shopify, many other web-based builders emerged:

• Wix.com, founded in 2006, offered a fully browser-based drag-and-drop website builder targeting the same demographic that might have once used FrontPage or Fusion – users with no coding skills who want to make a website for themselves or their small business. Wix’s editor runs in the browser and allows on-screen drag positioning, adding interactive widgets (maps, forms, videos) easily, and one-click publishing (the site is hosted on Wix’s servers). Wix operates on a freemium model (free sites with Wix ads, paid plans for custom domains and more features). This strategy led to massive growth – Wix reports having over 220 million users worldwide (Wix Statistics (How Many Websites Are Made With Wix?) - Colorlib). Not all of those are active websites (W3Techs measures Wix as powering about 2.5% of all websites as of 2023 (Wix Statistics (How Many Websites Are Made With Wix?) - Colorlib), which is still millions of sites), but it indicates how many have tried or used the platform. The convenience of designing in a web browser and not worrying about FTP or server setup was a game-changer for casual users.
• Squarespace followed a similar model, focusing on elegant templates and appealing to creatives and small companies looking for polished designs. It, too, has millions of paying users and a significant presence among modern websites (especially in portfolios, blogs, and small e-commerce).
• Joomla and Drupal, like WordPress, are self-hosted open-source CMSs. They were quite popular in the late 2000s (Joomla especially among users who needed more structure than WordPress initially offered). However, WordPress eventually outpaced them due to its user-friendliness and plugin ecosystem. These systems still have their niches (Drupal, for example, is used for many government and large organization sites requiring heavy customization).
• Weebly, Webflow, and others: Weebly (founded 2006, later acquired by Square) offered another browser-based builder focusing on simplicity. Webflow (2013) targets designers who want a no-code tool that still outputs clean HTML/CSS for front-end web design, bridging professional needs with a visual interface.

All these platforms share the trait that the creation process is online and the deployment is instantaneous – when you build with them, your site is essentially “live” as you build it (even if hidden until you publish). This is a stark difference from the old desktop model, where building and publishing were separate phases.

Comparison of Adoption: Modern platforms dwarf the usage of old desktop tools. WordPress alone powers over one-third of all websites (WordPress vs Dreamweaver (2025) — Which is Better?), whereas at most, the combined output of all sites built with Dreamweaver, FrontPage, etc., in their prime would have been a single-digit percentage of the (much smaller) web of the early 2000s. The adoption curve accelerated because these platforms removed more barriers (cost, skill, infrastructure) and benefited from network effects (communities, marketplace of themes/plugins, etc.). The table in the next section will summarize some of these numbers side-by-side.

Business Model Shift: Another crucial difference is the shift from one-time software sales to ongoing services. Desktop applications were usually bought once (or upgraded occasionally). In contrast, many modern platforms are subscription-based (Shopify, Wix, Squarespace) or generate revenue through hosting and premium features (even “free” WordPress has a whole economy around it). This meant continuous revenue for those platform providers, allowing them to invest more in development, marketing, and support, further boosting adoption. For example, Shopify’s subscription model and app store not only earn it revenue but also keep users engaged with the platform (they don’t “leave” after building the site, they remain as monthly customers). Similarly, WordPress’s open-source nature meant web hosts could offer it easily, and companies like Automattic could offer WordPress.com hosting with premium upgrades. The net effect is that these platforms became sustainable and scalable businesses in a way that selling web editor software was not. This in turn financed their growth and the pace of innovation.

In summary, the rise of web-based platforms provided solutions that were more accessible to the masses and more adaptable to the web’s evolution. They far outpaced the desktop tools in both user adoption and commercial success. Next, we analyze why these modern approaches outcompeted the desktop paradigm, looking at factors like usability, accessibility, scalability, and the changing nature of the internet.

Why Desktop Web Editors Lost Dominance

By the 2010s, it was clear that traditional desktop web design software had become a shadow of its former self in terms of market presence. Several key factors contributed to why these tools were not as commercially successful in the long run, especially when compared to the new generation of web-based platforms:

1. Usability and Learning Curve: Early desktop tools did make web design easier than pure coding, but they still required a learning curve and could be unintuitive. Many users of FrontPage or Dreamweaver would produce a basic site fairly quickly, but doing something beyond the basics – say a multi-column layout that didn’t break, or a consistent style – could become tricky. Users often had to understand underlying concepts like HTML tables, forms, or CSS to troubleshoot issues (e.g., a page looking different in Netscape vs IE). In effect, the promise of “no coding needed” was only partially fulfilled. For instance, Dreamweaver tends to hide code from users, which can lead them to depend on the software without truly understanding HTML/CSS – this can become a crutch and a limitation for growth (The Dreamweaver Debate: Is It Still Relevant for Web Designers?). By contrast, modern builders improved usability dramatically. WordPress allows non-technical people to add pages or blog posts through a simple editor (similar to writing a document). Shopify’s onboarding and admin interface are designed for people who might have zero web experience. Wix’s drag-and-drop is far more intuitive than early editors because web technology (like HTML5/CSS3) now allows more fluid and flexible design behaviors, which Wix leverages. Essentially, the new platforms reduced the skill needed even further: you don’t need to know what FTP is, you don’t need to grapple with as many cross-browser bugs, and you have templates that ensure a decent design without manual tweaking. This greatly expanded the user base – many who would have been intimidated by Dreamweaver found Wix or WordPress approachable.

2. Accessibility and Connectivity: Desktop applications inherently require you to install software on a specific computer. This poses several issues: you’re tied to that device for editing your site, you have to manage software updates yourself, and collaboration is cumbersome (if multiple people need to edit a site, they might pass files around or use version control manually). As the internet matured, people expected to be able to work from anywhere. Web-based platforms meet this expectation – you can log into your WordPress site or Shopify store from any browser in the world and make changes. Multiple users can have accounts to collaborate on a site. No installation needed; all you need is internet access. As broadband and Wi-Fi became ubiquitous, the advantage of being able to make a quick edit or publish a blog post from a library computer, or from your phone or tablet, made a big difference. The old model (needing your PC with the software) felt increasingly outdated in an era of cloud computing. Moreover, from an accessibility in the disability sense, web platforms could leverage browser’s accessibility features, whereas some desktop editors did not prioritize accessible interface design (though this was a minor contributor compared to general convenience).

3. Scalability and Content Management: Perhaps the most decisive factor is how well modern platforms handle scaling up content and complexity. When using a tool like FrontPage or Dreamweaver, if your site grew to, say, 500 pages, it became quite a task to manage. You’d have a large collection of static files. If you wanted to change the navigation menu, you might have to update hundreds of files unless you had set up templates. The introduction of a database-backed CMS like WordPress changed this completely: you separate content from presentation. Want to change the menu or header? Change the theme template once, and it affects the whole site. Need to add a new section or feature? Activate a plugin. The maintenance overhead for large sites dropped significantly with CMSs. This made WordPress/Joomla/Drupal the go-to for not just bloggers but also corporate websites, news sites, etc., where content was regularly updated by multiple authors. Additionally, dynamic content (recent posts, related articles, search functionality) is built-in with a CMS, whereas a static site built in a desktop tool has to rely on external scripts or manual updates for such features. E-commerce scalability is another angle: If one built an online store with Dreamweaver, one had to integrate a database and scripting (like ASP or PHP) and perhaps use Dreamweaver’s code features to assist, but essentially it was a custom development job. With Shopify or WooCommerce (on WordPress), the heavy lifting of setting up database, product management UI, etc., is pre-built and scales with the platform’s infrastructure. For example, a Shopify store can go from 10 products to 10,000 products without the store owner needing to change their tool – Shopify’s backend handles it. This kind of scalability and out-of-the-box content management was a huge draw. It’s a primary reason that professional developers and agencies moved to CMS platforms – they could build bigger, more powerful sites faster and hand them over to clients to manage content easily. The old desktop tools just weren’t designed for this kind of scale or dynamic content.

4. Evolution of Web Standards: The web underwent rapid evolution – from HTML3 to HTML4 (with CSS1/2) in the late 90s, then XHTML, then HTML5/CSS3 in the 2000s, along with the rise of JavaScript frameworks and the demand for responsive design after the advent of smartphones. Many desktop editors struggled to keep up with these changes:

• Standards Compliance: Early FrontPage produced HTML that was often not standards-compliant (e.g., using its own tags like <o:p> or <font> tags everywhere, long after CSS was the recommended way). This led to broken pages in non-IE browsers and was a technical debt. Over time, standards became more important as browsers converged and projects like Web Standards Project pressured tools to improve. Dreamweaver did improve compliance (especially after 2005) (Adobe Dreamweaver - Wikipedia), but others lagged.
• CSS Layouts: The move from table-based layouts to CSS-based layouts in the early-mid 2000s was painful for WYSIWYG tools. A table layout can be visually represented in an editor easily (it’s like a grid). CSS, however, separates style from content. Early WYSIWYGs had a hard time with CSS positioning, floats, etc. Many users of those tools ended up still using table layouts because it was the path of least resistance. This created sites that were not future-proof. Modern themes and builders embrace CSS fully, and by now the tools have caught up (even Dreamweaver’s current version has good CSS support), but during the transition, those who wanted cutting-edge designs found the desktop tools inadequate.
• Responsive/Mobile Design: When mobile web exploded after 2007, it introduced the need for responsive design (one site adapting to different screen sizes). The old desktop tools were not built with this in mind. Dreamweaver eventually added responsive design view toggles, etc., but by then many designers had moved to either coding frameworks (like Bootstrap) or using CMS themes that were already responsive. WordPress, for instance, had responsive default themes and countless adaptive templates, so a user could get a mobile-friendly site without understanding the underlying CSS media queries. Desktop tools simply could not easily retrofit this capability – some tried (Adobe even created a new product, Adobe Muse in 2011, to tackle responsive visual design for non-coders, but even Muse was discontinued by 2018 after limited success).
• Interactive Web (JavaScript and beyond): As web pages became web applications with heavy JavaScript (AJAX, etc.), the concept of a static page editor became less relevant. Developers started using frameworks (Angular, React, etc.) which involve a lot of code structure that a traditional WYSIWYG can’t represent. While this mainly concerns professional developers, it’s a reason the pro segment left tools like Dreamweaver – they moved to specialized code editors and build tools to handle complex web app development. Meanwhile, for simpler interactive needs, WordPress plugins could provide things like sliders, galleries, etc., with minimal fuss.

In short, the pace of innovation in web standards outstripped the capabilities of the old software, and new platforms (with active communities or dedicated SaaS teams) adapted faster. Desktop tools either required purchasing new versions or simply didn’t evolve quickly enough, leaving users with outdated practices.

5. Internet Connectivity & Always-Online Expectation: In the 90s, most people were on dial-up; being offline while building a site was normal and even preferable (you wouldn’t tie up your phone line). By the late 2000s, broadband internet meant being online was not a hindrance, and indeed web applications (Gmail, Google Docs, etc.) proved that even complex tasks could be done via the browser. The need to do everything locally diminished. Additionally, content creation itself moved online – people started blogging directly on platforms (LiveJournal, Blogger, then WordPress), they uploaded photos to Flickr, posted videos to YouTube, etc. The notion of editing locally and uploading started to feel antiquated. Consumers and businesses alike grew comfortable with cloud solutions. This broader trend in software (the shift to SaaS) clearly impacted website creation as well. Services like Wix capitalized on this: why install software when you can just open a browser and start designing? The convenience factor, combined with not having to worry about software compatibility (e.g., no issue of “does this run on my new OS version?” or “do I have the right DLLs?” which plagued some desktop apps), made cloud tools more attractive. Furthermore, being online allowed rapid updates and support – e.g., if a security flaw is found or a feature needs improvement, a cloud platform updates on the server side and all users benefit immediately. Desktop software updates were slower and required user action to install.

6. Cost and Commercial Factors: The traditional desktop web editors were mostly paid software (often quite pricey for individual users). This naturally limited their widespread adoption to those willing to invest. For example, Dreamweaver’s cost (hundreds of dollars) put it out of reach for many hobbyists unless they pirated it. FrontPage was cheaper but still a paid product (unless your employer or school provided it). In contrast, WordPress is free and open-source; anyone can download and use it without cost (you just need hosting, which many people were already paying for and is relatively cheap). Open-source CMS like WordPress and Drupal benefited from volunteer development and free distribution, enabling them to spread quickly with minimal friction. Hosted platforms often use a freemium model – for instance, Wix lets you start building and even publish a site on a Wix subdomain for free, which entices millions to try it, some of whom then upgrade. Shopify offers free trials and then monthly plans, which for a business is an operational expense often much easier to justify than a large upfront software purchase. The monetization model also meant companies behind these platforms had continuous revenue streams to fund improvements, marketing, and customer support, fueling further growth. By contrast, companies like NetObjects or even Adobe with Dreamweaver had to keep selling new versions or expand to new customers – a harder proposition once the market saturates or growth slows. We even saw Microsoft make Expression Web free in its final iteration (Microsoft Expression Web - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) because the revenue opportunity wasn’t there anymore; they likely calculated that it wasn’t a product people were going to pay for in the era of free alternatives.

7. Community and Ecosystem: Modern platforms benefited from network effects. WordPress, being open-source, built a massive community of developers and contributors. This meant faster development, a plethora of plugins for every need, and community support forums where a user could get help. The more people used WordPress, the more themes and plugins were created, which in turn attracted more users – a virtuous cycle. Desktop tools had much smaller ecosystems. Some had plugin architectures (Dreamweaver extensions, FrontPage add-ins), but the pool of contributors was limited (often small companies selling to the relatively small user base of those tools). Consequently, a user’s ability to extend functionality was constrained. If an old tool didn’t have a feature, you might be stuck or have to wait for the next version. With WordPress, if you need a feature, likely “there’s a plugin for that” created by the community. Similarly, Shopify has an app store with many third-party modules to extend store functionality. This ecosystem advantage is a huge factor in long-term viability. It’s part of why, for example, Dreamweaver eventually could not compete with WordPress – even though Dreamweaver is still an active product, it cannot offer thousands of ready-made templates or plugins that instantly add complex features.

8. Performance and Technical Maintenance: Running a large website on static files or semi-dynamic pages (like FrontPage with FPSE) can be less efficient than a well-optimized CMS. As sites grew more complex, the technical overhead of managing them with desktop tools increased. Meanwhile, CMS platforms improved caching, scalability, etc., to handle high traffic. Also, maintenance tasks like security updates are easier in the CMS world – for example, WordPress can auto-update itself or at least notify admins, whereas a site built in Dreamweaver is only as secure as the code it contains (which might become outdated or have vulnerabilities if using old scripts). The requirement to maintain not just the site content but also the software (like you might need to buy a new version of Dreamweaver to get security patches or new features) could be seen as a disadvantage. Over time, many organizations likely evaluated that using an open-source or widely supported platform was safer and more maintainable than relying on a few installations of a proprietary editor.

9. Focus Shift of Companies: The companies behind the original tools shifted focus as well. Adobe, for example, pivoted more towards its core creative tools and the new market of digital marketing (with acquisitions like Adobe Experience Manager, a CMS for enterprise). Dreamweaver, while still part of Creative Cloud, is no longer a flagship product in terms of promotion or priority. Microsoft shifted from FrontPage to Expression Web and then effectively exited, focusing on Visual Studio for web developers and online services for others. NetObjects’ parent company moved on to other web services. Essentially, the big players decided that desktop web editors were not a growth market. This lack of investment or early termination of these products meant they couldn’t compete with the continuously improving cloud platforms.

In conclusion, desktop-based web tools were outpaced by changes in user needs and technology. The web became more interactive, more constantly connected, and the bar for “easy web design” moved higher (towards truly non-technical users and towards managing content, not just pages). Online platforms rose to meet those needs with greater convenience, community, and scalability. The older tools, built for a different era of the web, gradually lost their user base – either to the new platforms or to direct coding approaches – and thus lost commercial viability.

Conclusion

The evolution from desktop web design applications to cloud-based website platforms is a classic story of technological shift. In the late 90s, tools like Dreamweaver, FrontPage, GoLive, and others were revolutionary – they opened the web to creative professionals and hobbyists who would have been blocked by the steep hill of manual coding. These applications enabled the creation of countless early websites and essentially taught a generation how to build for the web. Each had its niche: Dreamweaver for the serious coder-designer hybrid, FrontPage for the office user or casual site builder, Fusion for the design-oriented non-coder, and so on. They turned the act of building a site into something more visual and approachable, which was critical in the Web 1.0 era.

However, as the internet grew and matured, the very premises of those tools were challenged. The emergence of always-on connectivity, powerful server-side software, and a demand for dynamic content led to a new breed of solutions. Modern cloud-based platforms like WordPress and Shopify (and others like Wix, Squarespace) have achieved far greater adoption and commercial success by addressing the shortcomings of the old model. They made website creation more accessible (often free or low-cost, and doable entirely in-browser), more scalable (handling large, frequently updated sites with ease), and more integrated (combining design, content management, and hosting into one package).

In pure numbers, the difference is stark – a single platform like WordPress now powers a large portion of the web (WordPress vs Dreamweaver (2025) — Which is Better?), whereas none of the desktop tools ever reached that level of ubiquity. The desktop tools either disappeared or became niche products; for example, FrontPage is long gone, and Dreamweaver today occupies a specialized role, mostly for developers working on specific front-end tasks, rather than being a primary way to build most websites.

Key factors such as ease of use, continuous accessibility, multi-user collaboration, automatic updates, adherence to web standards, and the ability to add complex functionality without coding all tilted the balance towards the cloud solutions. Additionally, the business models played a role: companies found more sustainable revenue in hosting and services than in software licenses, which meant the most investment and innovation started happening in online platforms rather than desktop software.

In hindsight, desktop web editors were a stepping stone – necessary in a time when the web itself wasn’t capable of self-hosting its development environment. As the web became more capable, it started hosting the tools to build itself. The trends indicate that web development has fully embraced the web as both the medium and the tool: today you can design in a browser, use web-based IDEs, and deploy in seconds to cloud servers. This doesn’t diminish the contribution of those earlier tools; rather, it puts it in context. They paved the way and influenced today’s site-building interfaces (for instance, many modern WordPress page builder plugins use a drag-and-drop interface reminiscent of Fusion or FrontPage, but within the browser).

In conclusion, desktop applications for website building were the right solution for their time but were not built to thrive in the long run as the environment changed. Modern cloud platforms, with their superior usability, scalability, and connectivity, have taken the mantle, yielding significantly higher user adoption and commercial success. The table below summarizes the key examples of these desktop tools and contrasts them with some modern platforms, highlighting their features, audiences, and ultimate fates.

Summary of Website Building Tools: Then vs Now

| Tool / Platform | Era (Peak Usage) | Approach | Target Users | Notable Features and Capabilities | Outcome / Legacy | |------------------------------|-----------------------------|-------------------------------|-----------------------------------|-------------------------------------------------------------------------|------------------------------------------------------------------| | Macromedia/Adobe Dreamweaver | Late 1990s–2000s (peak usage in professional web design) | Desktop WYSIWYG + Code Editor (visual design with round-trip HTML) | Professional web developers and designers who wanted fine control with some automation | Dual environment: design view and code view with synchronization (Macromedia - Wikipedia). Integrated site management and FTP upload (Adobe Dreamweaver - Wikipedia). Support for HTML, CSS, JS, and server scripting (ASP, PHP, ColdFusion) with code hints (Adobe Dreamweaver - Wikipedia) (Adobe Dreamweaver - Wikipedia). Templates and library items for reusability. Extensible via third-party extensions. | Became the market leader among pros (used by ~66% of web developers in 1999) (Macromedia - Wikipedia). Provided a bridge between manual coding and visual design in early web development. Still available as part of Adobe CC, but its influence has waned – today <0.5% of websites are built with Dreamweaver (WordPress vs Dreamweaver (2025) — Which is Better?). Survives as a niche tool for certain workflows, overshadowed by CMS and modern IDEs. | | Microsoft FrontPage | Late 1990s–early 2000s (especially 1996–2003) | Desktop WYSIWYG HTML Editor (Office-like interface) | Non-technical users, small businesses, and hobbyists (especially those familiar with Microsoft Office) | Easy, template-driven editing: WYSIWYG design hiding HTML details (Microsoft FrontPage - Wikipedia). Included themes/templates and one-click components (hit counters, forms, etc.) that used FrontPage Server Extensions on the server (Microsoft FrontPage - Wikipedia). Later versions introduced split code/design view and IntelliSense for HTML/CSS (Microsoft FrontPage - Wikipedia) (Microsoft FrontPage - Wikipedia). Integrated with Office (could import Word/Excel content). | Widely used by beginners and in corporate intranets (bundled in MS Office). However, it generated notoriously non-standard, bloated code (html - Why shouldn't professional web developers use Microsoft FrontPage? - Stack Overflow) and was tied to proprietary server tech, causing compatibility issues. Discontinued in 2006; replaced by Expression Web (which was aimed at standards-compliant design but was itself discontinued by 2012, ultimately made free) (Microsoft FrontPage - Wikipedia) (Microsoft Expression Web - Simple English Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia). FrontPage’s legacy is largely cautionary – it introduced many to web design, but its practices fell out of favor as the web matured. | | NetObjects Fusion | Late 1990s (around 1996–2001 peak) | Desktop Drag-and-Drop Site Builder (proprietary site-generation approach) | Graphic designers, print publishers, and other non-coders wanting to build websites | Totally visual design: pages laid out like in desktop publishing, with pixel-level control (NetObjects Fusion - Wikipedia). Content and layout stored in a proprietary database and HTML generated on publish (NetObjects Fusion - Wikipedia). Site-oriented workflow: had a site structure view to plan navigation hierarchy. Offered pre-designed SiteStyles and later added features like photo galleries and basic e-commerce widgets (NetObjects Fusion Still Fills a Vital Web Design Role). Required little to no HTML knowledge; code view was limited. | Achieved early success (won awards; was a top tool in some regions, e.g., ~⅔ market share in Germany by end of 90s (NetObjects Fusion - Wikipedia)). However, lost mainstream share to more flexible tools like Dreamweaver by the 2000s (NetObjects Fusion - Wikipedia). Maintained a loyal niche community but saw declining sales (only ~$2.5M revenue in 2008) (NetObjects Fusion - Wikipedia). The company changed hands (Web.com then reformed NetObjects) and released versions up to 2015, but Fusion is now effectively obsolete. It foreshadowed modern no-code builders but couldn’t adapt to evolving standards (e.g., limited CSS or manual code capability hindered it). | | Adobe GoLive | Early 2000s (Adobe GoLive active 1999–2007) | Desktop WYSIWYG Editor (strong design integration) | Web and graphic designers, particularly Mac users and Adobe software users | Originally GoLive CyberStudio. Featured a layout grid for design, deep integration with Adobe Photoshop/ImageReady (for slicing images into web layouts), and decent CSS support for its time. Provided site management and drag-and-drop form elements, etc. Emphasized a design-friendly UI consistent with Adobe’s other tools. | Gained popularity in design circles, especially on Mac (it was a key competitor to Dreamweaver pre-2005). After Adobe acquired Macromedia (and Dreamweaver) in 2005, GoLive was phased out – last version in 2007, then discontinued. Adobe encouraged users to migrate to Dreamweaver. Seen as a casualty of market consolidation; its DNA (catered to visual designers) lives on in some modern Adobe offerings and influenced later tools like Adobe Muse (also now discontinued). | | Other Editors (e.g., HotDog, CoffeeCup, Composer) | 1990s–2000s (various small players) | Mix of Code-centric and Simple WYSIWYG tools | Hobbyist webmasters, students, and budget-conscious users | HotDog (Sausage Software): A popular shareware HTML editor in the mid-90s, primarily code-based with wizards for tables/forms. CoffeeCup HTML Editor: Shareware tool with split code/preview, aimed at beginners (started 1996, still updated in some form). Netscape/Mozilla Composer: Free WYSIWYG editor included with Netscape Communicator (1997+) and Mozilla/SeaMonkey – very basic but accessible for personal homepages. Microsoft FrontPage Express: a free pared-down version of FrontPage that came with Internet Explorer 4 in 1997, giving casual users a taste of web editing. These tools offered simpler or cheaper alternatives to the big names, often with limited feature sets. | Most of these had minor commercial success or influence. HotDog and similar editors were used by many hobbyists in the 90s but faded as integrated and free tools appeared. Netscape Composer introduced many to WYSIWYG editing since it was free; its codebase led to later open-source editors like NVU/KompoZer (mid-2000s) which attempted to continue the free WYSIWYG concept. Ultimately, nearly all these smaller editors were discontinued or became niche. They either evolved (CoffeeCup shifted focus to modern web tools) or were replaced by open-source projects and online builders. Their legacy is mostly in lowering entry barriers for amateurs in the early web, a role now overtaken by free online services. | | WordPress (Self-Hosted CMS) | 2010s–present (launched 2003, major growth from ~2005 onward) | Online Content Management System (PHP/MySQL application installed on a server; browser-based interface) | Bloggers, content creators, businesses of all sizes; developers (via customization) – broad audience spanning novice to expert | Online dashboard for managing site content (posts, pages, media) with a WYSIWYG post editor. Theme system separates design from content; thousands of free and premium themes available. Plugin architecture allows adding features (from SEO to e-commerce) with one click – over 60,000 plugins in the repository. Strong community support and regular updates. Can be used without touching code, but is also extensible via PHP for developers. | Became the world’s most popular website platform, powering ~43% of all websites (WordPress vs Dreamweaver (2025) — Which is Better?) (and ~61% of sites that use any CMS (WordPress vs. Adobe Dreamweaver vs. Web Studio usage statistics, March 2025)). Enabled tens of millions of non-technical users to maintain websites and thousands of developers to build businesses around WordPress (themes, hosting, services). Essentially supplanted desktop editors for most small-to-medium websites by offering easier content updates, scalability, and huge ecosystem. Business-wise, spawned a multi-billion dollar economy (from hosting companies to WordPress-focused agencies). WordPress demonstrated the viability and dominance of the open-source, web-based model. | | Shopify (Hosted E-Commerce) | 2010s–present (launched 2006, major growth in 2010s) | Fully Hosted SaaS Website Builder (specialized for online stores) | Entrepreneurs, retailers, and businesses wanting to sell online without web development skills | All-in-one e-commerce: web-based store builder with drag-and-drop editing and theming. Provides secure hosting, shopping cart, payment processing, inventory management, and even point-of-sale integration out of the box. Users manage products and orders via an online admin panel. Extendable through an App Store for added functionality. No coding needed, but custom HTML/CSS or Liquid (template language) can be used for advanced customization. | One of the most commercially successful site-building platforms. As of 2024, hosts 5.6 million+ active online stores (Shopify - Wikipedia) and has enormous revenue (>$8B in 2024) (Shopify - Wikipedia). Revolutionized how small businesses approach e-commerce by abstracting technical overhead. Its success highlights the demand for turn-key, scalable solutions, which desktop tools couldn’t offer (setting up an equivalent store with FrontPage/Dreamweaver required considerable effort and technical know-how). Shopify’s model of ongoing subscription service also exemplifies the new software business paradigm, contrasting with one-time software license sales of old. | | Wix / Squarespace (Hosted Builders) | 2010s–present (Wix launched 2006, Squarespace 2004, both surged in 2010s) | Cloud-Based No-Code Website Builders (browser-based drag-and-drop interfaces) | General users: individuals, bloggers, artists, small businesses – anyone seeking an easy, visually-driven way to create a site | In-browser design editors: Users can drag text boxes, images, slideshows, etc., directly on a page canvas and customize styles visually. Offer a library of modern, mobile-responsive templates. Hosting is included; publishing is instant. Additional features via built-in widgets or app marketplaces (e.g., contact forms, booking systems). Emphasis on ease: no coding required at all, though some platforms allow adding custom code if needed. | Hundreds of millions of users globally. Wix, for example, has over 220 million registered users (Wix Statistics (How Many Websites Are Made With Wix?) - Colorlib) and powers about 2.5% of all websites (Wix Statistics (How Many Websites Are Made With Wix?) - Colorlib). Squarespace hosts millions of sites and is well-known for catering to creatives with design-centric templates. These services heavily advertise the idea that anyone can make a professional-looking website with no technical knowledge. They have captured a huge segment of the market that previously might have used a desktop tool (or hired a designer). The success of Wix, Squarespace, and similar builders underscores how the convenience and accessibility of cloud tools effectively eliminated the market for desktop web software among casual users. |

As the table illustrates, the landscape of web creation has drastically shifted from standalone software tools to online platforms. The “then” tools were groundbreaking in their time but ultimately limited by the era’s technology and business models. The “now” platforms learned from those early lessons and leveraged the maturity of the internet to provide solutions that scale in both usage and commerce. In the end, building a website moved from being a task done in a siloed desktop environment to an integrated online process – reflecting the broader evolution of software towards the cloud. The trajectory of these tools and platforms highlights key trends: increasing abstraction of technical complexity, greater emphasis on user experience, and the power of community and networked services in determining long-term success (WordPress vs Dreamweaver (2025) — Which is Better?) (Shopify - Wikipedia). The result is that today, virtually anyone can create and deploy a website with ease, a reality that stands on the shoulders of those early desktop applications that first brought the web to the masses.