| LoginSupport.CMSFeaturesPlansModulesUseAdvantagesBranch editionsTechnical DetailsASP advantages.E-COMMERCE.E-BILLING.HOSTING.E-MARKETINGBecome a partnerPartner supportLoginContactSitemapPressTerms and ConditionsData protection noticeImprintGlossary
|
 Annotation of apparent arguments pro Typo3
- Pro-Argument: gratis, as it is an Open Source Program
Annotation: The software itself is gratis, but the costs for the establishment, for the permanent maintenance and for the adaptation are very high and not to be underestimated from the side of the support effort.
- Pro-Argument: I am independent from a producer using Typo3.
Annotation: Using Typo 3 one is independent from a commercial and organised producer. But one is dependent on a local and honorary development team. This avoids a fast reaction, support and service. There is no one who is legally or economically responsible for Typo3. A commercial software producer offers the economically necessary flexibility and resources to react on his customers´ wishes with the means of support, updating and development in adequate time and quality.
- Pro-Argument: Typo3 is cheaper than content2project.CMS.
Annotation: At first sight it may appear like that. But this is not the case. One does not pay purchase costs or license costs for Typo3, but the establishment price and the adaptation costs of Typo3 are much higher than the simple utilisation price of content2project.CMS for the whole economic useful life (averaged 3-4 years). In contrast to Typo3 one profits with content2project.CMS from the gratis provision of the constantly latest version of the rented plan of content2project.CMS. With Typo3 a complex and cost-intensive migration to a new version is necessary. Many functionalities which can be found in content2project.CMS as a standard have to be implemented into Typo3 complexly, because they strongly depend on the design here. The „Total Costs“of content2project.CMS lie far beneath the „Total Costs“of a permanent development and adaptation of Typo3. Additionally, the users of content2project.CMS can work essentially more efficiently and more flexibly because of the user-friendly surface than in a technically adept Typo3 version.
- Pro-Argument: I have no investment risk with Typo3.
Annotation: As the total costs of Typo3 are essentially higher and intransparent across the whole economic useful life than the uniform and fixed leasing price in the ASP model of content2project.CMS, there is an essentially greater investment risk than with content2project.CMS. After implementing Typo3 there have been a lot of investment costs which cannot be reversed economically that fast. Thus, Typo3 has to be used for a certain period of time even if one is not content. content2project.CMS however can be quitted without any problems for the next quitting date without staying down on high investment costs.
- Pro-Argument: With Typo3 I can change the offerer without problems.
Annotation: Typo3 does not strictly separate contents, design and programming (technics). This causes a mergence of data of contents, design and programming. When there is a change the new service provider gets the merged data with partly strongly individual programming which is not portable to another service provider or another product without further effort. With content2project.CMS there is a strict separation between the data of contents, design and programming. Through this the customer can import the data of contents and design separately into a new Content-Management-System when there is a change to a new service provider.
|
