Wordpress vs WP Engine – what does this mean for the rest of us?
Let’s break down what’s happening between WordPress.org, WP Engine, and the recent conflict in a straightforward way for those who aren’t familiar with the WordPress ecosystem.
The Beginning – What is WordPress.org?
WordPress.org is the birthplace of WordPress, the world’s most popular content management system (CMS), powering over 810 million websites – about 43.5% of all sites on the internet. It offers free, open-source software that anyone can download and use to build and manage their own websites, whether it’s a blog, e-commerce site, or corporate site. Through WordPress.org, users can access thousands of plugins and themes to customise their websites. The platform is driven by a diverse community of developers, volunteers, and companies who contribute to its development.
Who is WP Engine?
WP Engine is a managed WordPress hosting provider that hosts over 1.5 million WordPress websites. They specialise in high-performance hosting services with added benefits such as 24/7/365 customer support, security features, and server management. This makes it easier for businesses to focus on their content and growth rather than on the technical aspects of managing a website. Their reliable support and optimised hosting environment have made them a popular choice for businesses looking for managed WordPress solutions.
So What Went Wrong?
The conflict began when Matt Mullenweg, co-creator of WordPress and CEO of Automattic (more on this later), accused WP Engine of taking advantage of the WordPress ecosystem without adequately contributing back. He argued that while WP Engine profits significantly from WordPress, it does not make sufficient financial or code contributions to the project. Tensions escalated when Mullenweg called WP Engine a “cancer to WordPress” and demanded that the company obtain a trademark license and pay licensing fees for using the “WP” trademark .
The situation came to a head during a WordCamp conference, where Mullenweg set a tight deadline for WP Engine to comply with his demands. When the company did not, WordPress.org blocked WP Engine from accessing key resources, such as the plugin and theme repositories, effectively preventing millions of WP Engine-hosted sites from performing updates. This caused widespread disruption and chaos for businesses relying on WP Engine for hosting their WordPress sites.
The Fallout: Cease and Desist Letters, Bans, and More
WP Engine responded by issuing a cease and desist letter, accusing Mullenweg of using a “scorched earth” strategy to pressure the company. Automattic fired back with its own legal actions, alleging trademark infringement and unfair competition.
Prominent WordPress contributors Javier Casares and Andrew Hutchings were even banned from the community Slack channel for questioning Mullenweg’s decisions, further fuelling concerns about governance and transparency .
A Mass Departure from Automattic
The internal strife extended to Automattic itself, where Mullenweg offered buyouts to employees who disagreed with his handling of the conflict. This resulted in 159 employees, about 8.4% of the workforce, accepting the buyout and leaving the company. The departures raised concerns about the long-term stability of the WordPress project and the impact on the ecosystem’s development.
What Does This Mean for the Industry?
The dispute highlights the tension between the open-source ethos and commercial interests. For many, WordPress’s strength lies in its community-driven development, but conflicts like this reveal the risks when major players in the ecosystem clash. The situation raises important questions: How much should companies that profit from WordPress be required to contribute back? And what happens when they don’t?
The conflict also sets a worrying precedent where governance disputes could disrupt services. Blocking WP Engine’s access to essential resources like the plugin repository has shown how vulnerable businesses can be if their hosting provider or CMS provider gets entangled in a dispute. This raises broader concerns about stability and service continuity, what happens if they do this to another hosting provider like Hostinger, Bluehost, or Pressable?
The Rise of Bespoke Websites and Alternatives
This conflict may accelerate the shift toward bespoke websites and custom content management systems (CMS). Unlike WordPress, custom solutions provide greater control, flexibility, and potentially better security, as they are built specifically for an organisation’s needs. Modern development trends such as headless CMS and JAMstack architectures, which separate content management from presentation, are also gaining momentum as companies seek to mitigate risks associated with monolithic platforms like WordPress .
So What’s WordPress.com then?
WordPress.com is a commercial service run by Automattic, the same Automattic where Matt Mullenweg, co-creator of WordPress is CEO. It offers managed hosting where users can create and manage sites without worrying about server maintenance, but at various pricing levels and is a direct competitor to WP Engine. Remember that in contrast, WordPress.org is where users can download the software for free and host it themselves, giving them full control over their website but also requiring them to handle hosting and maintenance.
The Latest Twist
Now, WordPress.org users face a new checkbox requirement when creating or logging into accounts: they must confirm they are not affiliated with WP Engine in any capacity. This unusual step signals the depth of the rift and may create additional hurdles for developers and users connected to WP Engine, potentially affecting their participation in the broader WordPress community.
Conclusion
The feud between WordPress.org, Automattic, and WP Engine is a stark reminder of the challenges in balancing open-source principles with commercial interests. How the conflict is resolved will shape the future of the WordPress ecosystem, potentially driving changes in governance, community dynamics, and the CMS landscape itself. For businesses, it’s a wake-up call to evaluate their reliance on any single platform and explore alternatives that align better with their needs and risk appetite.
