We recently discussed what builders do already work with CP. Sharing here in case it is useful to you:
"We do have Beaver Builder publicly supporting CP.
FX Builder was developed for CP by forking a plugin for WP and I have it on some of my sites because it’s just GREAT.
Thing to note BB and FX are not compatible with one another but that is not a problem since one of the two is usually enough to develop a site."
@growmap yeah for new sites or my rebrand maybe FX Builder with CP. Might as well go all in. We’ll see…
For our existing 40+ client sites with Elementor, those are locked in to WP and can’t be changed.
But an elementor fork??? I am not senior enough to understand it, but someone here might have the skills and resources to do it and profit from it.
No no, not a good idea. Elementor is a BIG company and that is their software. You don’t want to go there. And very difficult code to work with.
it is forkable, but I agree that to do that you need a very big company and someone who understands the codebase (same reason that in a way hindered the ClassicCommerce efforts). But I am sure at a certain point when CP has gained momentum someone will code an e-commerce for CP. It is bound to happen.
Re: Page Builders working with CP
Technically, Visual Composer (or whatever its called nowadays) should also work with CP, as it basically is just a nice UI for a shortcode orgy.
There also is some kind of Bootstrap-specific page editor that looked promising a few years ago, but I sadly cant seem to find it at the moment. Still, got its sources saved here somewhere (also, it was on github … I think), so it should be still good.
cu, w0lf.
LOL
(It’s called WP Bakery now - personally I’m not a fan)
To @growmap Gail’s original question:
Is Automattic Attacking WPEngine a potential opportunity for CP?
It sure looks that way!
They went from forcing Gutenberg into core to attacking WPEngine to claiming ownership of plugins in their repository.
There is definitely more interest in alternatives of all kinds now.